F
flyersfan1088
Guest
I do.
I have to put my trust in the Church Jesus instituted, and the fact that He promised the Holy Spirit will guide it
- Status
I have to put my trust in the Church Jesus instituted, and the fact that He promised the Holy Spirit will guide it
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
Since that verse is referring to the OLD TESTAMENT scriptures only(since that is all that EXISTED at the time), it seems we would need a little more to go on.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Oh, good point!
Although, if one considers that the Old Testament was simply the New Testament hidden, using the “Tradition” of St. Paul’s time to understand it, the Old Testament COULD thoroughly equip someone for every good work!
So, even the New Testament isn’t ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to thoroughly equip one for every good work!
In fact, only the decalogue is necessary to equip one for every good work!
In fact, again, only the Two Commandments of Jesus (Love God and Love Neighbor) are absolutely necessary to equip one for every good work!
Thus, the whole bible other than “Love God and Love neighbor” could be tossed out, and we’d STILL be fully and thoroughly equiped for every good work!
…but ONLY if we THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD IT!
And why do we not toss out the entire deposit of faith possessed by the Church (Catholic) other than the bible or the aforementioned “necessary bits”?
Because we find it wise to use what God has given us in it’s fullness, so as not to “short ourselves” for egotistical (prideful) reasons in doing what God wants us to do.
“Prideful Students who refuse to go to the library because someone in the library annoyed them at some point in the past” is how many Catholics see those who claim that “they know better for using only the books in their backpacks”.
It’s a real headscratcher, isn’t it?
P
peary
Guest
**I agree, flyer. A lot of Catholics disagree with the *moral *teachings of the Church and some leave the Church because of this (because they are usually engaged in questionable behavior themselves). Very few leave the Church over doctrinal matters.
But as Peter said to the Lord, “Where are we to go? You have the words of eternal life.”**
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Count me in disagreeing with this statement too. And a bunch of my Catholic friends too.
B
Bible_Believer
Guest
Well, I seem to be the odd guy out in this, but folks…God’s word IS the final authority in everything…not the church. It is clear from your catechism that you dont believe God’s word stands alone…you believe sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church are all three connected…(pg29, #95) the Bible does not support this belief. I am also going to boldly say that the Word of God is of no private interpretation, that I need the church to interpret it for me. I have the Holy Spirit living within me that teaches me His words. I base my salvation on His Word, and His Word ALONE. The Bible does not support what your catechism teaches about salvation , that the church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation Pg. 224, #846.
No where does Christ state that the RCC is essential for salvation.
Romas 10:9-10 clearly says, that if thous shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thous shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
1 John 4:9 says God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live THROUGH HIM.
No where does it say salvation is thru the church.
Acts 4:10, 12 Neither is there salvation in ANY OTHER for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Jesus Christ is obviously not a liar, nor were the Apostle Paul or John.
Romans 3:4…let God be true, but every man a liar…
believe God’s word…not the traditions of men.
No where does Christ state that the RCC is essential for salvation.
Romas 10:9-10 clearly says, that if thous shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thous shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
1 John 4:9 says God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live THROUGH HIM.
No where does it say salvation is thru the church.
Acts 4:10, 12 Neither is there salvation in ANY OTHER for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Jesus Christ is obviously not a liar, nor were the Apostle Paul or John.
Romans 3:4…let God be true, but every man a liar…
believe God’s word…not the traditions of men.
M
montanaman
Guest
This statement should be used in all Catholic Apologetics 101 courses. It’s an almost perfect index of the main misunderstandings of Catholicism and the mindset of your average fundamentalist.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I am praying you stick around here a while Believer. Welcome to the forums!!
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
Bible believer.
If the Holy Spirit has given you the ability to infallibly interpret scripture, and everyone else claiming this amongst the over 30,000 denominations
of protestantism, then which one of you is correct and therefore infallible?
One Flock, one Shepherd,
not 30,000 flocks all teaching contradictory teachings, with 30,000 shepherds.
Tell me precisely where Jesus ever told anyone that scripture alone is the final authority. Tell me where he told his apostle to write everything down he told them and then hold that as the sole authority.
he did not.
But if you read Matthew 18:18-20
you will see a different story. 1 tim 3:13-15 also which shows us specifically that the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth(Jesus). When the people had disputes and needed clarification, they went to the apostles who were the first bishops of the church. They did not just go to scripture.
If the Holy Spirit has given you the ability to infallibly interpret scripture, and everyone else claiming this amongst the over 30,000 denominations
of protestantism, then which one of you is correct and therefore infallible?
One Flock, one Shepherd,
not 30,000 flocks all teaching contradictory teachings, with 30,000 shepherds.
Tell me precisely where Jesus ever told anyone that scripture alone is the final authority. Tell me where he told his apostle to write everything down he told them and then hold that as the sole authority.
he did not.
But if you read Matthew 18:18-20
you will see a different story. 1 tim 3:13-15 also which shows us specifically that the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth(Jesus). When the people had disputes and needed clarification, they went to the apostles who were the first bishops of the church. They did not just go to scripture.
M
montanaman
Guest
I always find it amusing when some anti-Catholic comes along, condemns the Church for holding a belief that the pope, along with a constellation of bishops, and only in a narrow set of circumstances, is infallible, but in the same breath claims he has the inspiration and authority to infallibly interpret scripture.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad that this double-standard is well-hidden behind a gigantic blind spot.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad that this double-standard is well-hidden behind a gigantic blind spot.
B
Bible_Believer
Guest
I totally agree with the comment referring to churches who do the snake handling…yikes! Its true that there are those who do not know how to rightly divide the word of truth. I STILL stand on God’s word alone. Church tradition and the magesterium…still man’s interpretation…In rural America there are non Catholic believers whose worship includes close physical contact with poisonous reptiles. They seem to believe that since the Bible mentions the handling of snakes that this is a requirement of Christians. There are many other examples of misguided Christian denominations which depend on the Bible alone, as determined by their own interpretation, for guidance.
Thank G-d for the Magesterium and Catholic Tradition.
M
montanaman
Guest
Step 1. Learn what your ideological opponent actually believes, in his own words.
Step 2. Discern the differences between what you and he believe.
Step 3. Make arguments, don’t spew personal opinions–unless, of course, your whole point is to puff up your own pride.
K
Krocker
Guest
(1) Humans are fallible, broken, lost, deceitful and selfish by nature. If we weren’t, there would be no need for Jesus. The human condition naturally leads to corruption.
(2) The Bible is the single most historically verified and verifiable book in the history of the world.
(3) The written word is capable of painstaking comparison and, consequently, is not subject to physical change. Oral accounts are subject to change, regardless of the intent of the speaker or listener to stay true to or stray from an oral understanding (*e.g., *changes may be due to poor storytelling, poor hearing, an intent to deceive, an intent to wrest power). This is why it is extremely important that the Bible was written within a few decades of Jesus life, sealed and unchangeable for the remainder of time.
I think we can agree on the foregoing (with the exception of (1) in limited instances). With that said, from a purely logical standpoint, why not start with the Bible? Why shouldn’t everything coming after the Bible be compared to the Bible because of its historical verifiability?
The logical conclusion is that oral traditions cannot have the same weight as the Bible and that writings without the same historical verifiability cannot have the same weight as the Bible … and this is from a purely scholarly standpoint, regardless of what the Bible means or does not mean to you spiritually. We, as Christians, decide the latter.
Now, I realize that Jesus is the “Word” (not the Bible), but Jesus is not in human form speaking to us anymore. I also realize that not everything Jesus said and did could be recorded. The apostles were not transcriptionists. BUT, (a) if you were writing an account of Jesus’ life (the four gospels) or writing about the early church history (Acts), etc., etc., and (b) you could not write down everything, wouldn’t you write about the “BIG” stuff? The stuff that really matters? I think the logical answer has to be yes. So again, it makes sense that the Bible should be the starting point.
In my opinion, the only way “holes” can be punched in the foregoing is by changing one of the three items above. This is my concern (and I’m not saying it’s right or wrong) with the Catholic teaching of the equality of “other” tradition, supported by infallibility declarations. It is very disturbing to me that admittedly fallible humans can be infallible … sometimes. This is a HUGE deal because it is contrary to the very nature of human beings and the very purpose for Jesus’ crucifixion. Yet, this HUGE deal is not *clearly *expressed in the Bible, our logical starting point. And the farther away in time you get from the life and times of Jesus, the more of a concern I have – for example, the immaculate conception being declared infallible in 1854. What revelation is Jesus giving nearly 2000 years later that … now, we can finally declare that Mary is without original sin? I think it is a very dangerous precedent to rely upon the declarations of humans 2000 years after Jesus lived, rather than the writings of those who lived with and were closest to Him.
(2) The Bible is the single most historically verified and verifiable book in the history of the world.
(3) The written word is capable of painstaking comparison and, consequently, is not subject to physical change. Oral accounts are subject to change, regardless of the intent of the speaker or listener to stay true to or stray from an oral understanding (*e.g., *changes may be due to poor storytelling, poor hearing, an intent to deceive, an intent to wrest power). This is why it is extremely important that the Bible was written within a few decades of Jesus life, sealed and unchangeable for the remainder of time.
I think we can agree on the foregoing (with the exception of (1) in limited instances). With that said, from a purely logical standpoint, why not start with the Bible? Why shouldn’t everything coming after the Bible be compared to the Bible because of its historical verifiability?
The logical conclusion is that oral traditions cannot have the same weight as the Bible and that writings without the same historical verifiability cannot have the same weight as the Bible … and this is from a purely scholarly standpoint, regardless of what the Bible means or does not mean to you spiritually. We, as Christians, decide the latter.
Now, I realize that Jesus is the “Word” (not the Bible), but Jesus is not in human form speaking to us anymore. I also realize that not everything Jesus said and did could be recorded. The apostles were not transcriptionists. BUT, (a) if you were writing an account of Jesus’ life (the four gospels) or writing about the early church history (Acts), etc., etc., and (b) you could not write down everything, wouldn’t you write about the “BIG” stuff? The stuff that really matters? I think the logical answer has to be yes. So again, it makes sense that the Bible should be the starting point.
In my opinion, the only way “holes” can be punched in the foregoing is by changing one of the three items above. This is my concern (and I’m not saying it’s right or wrong) with the Catholic teaching of the equality of “other” tradition, supported by infallibility declarations. It is very disturbing to me that admittedly fallible humans can be infallible … sometimes. This is a HUGE deal because it is contrary to the very nature of human beings and the very purpose for Jesus’ crucifixion. Yet, this HUGE deal is not *clearly *expressed in the Bible, our logical starting point. And the farther away in time you get from the life and times of Jesus, the more of a concern I have – for example, the immaculate conception being declared infallible in 1854. What revelation is Jesus giving nearly 2000 years later that … now, we can finally declare that Mary is without original sin? I think it is a very dangerous precedent to rely upon the declarations of humans 2000 years after Jesus lived, rather than the writings of those who lived with and were closest to Him.
B
Bible_Believer
Guest
I am reading the book…Understanding Roman Catholicism, by Rick Jones, who came out of the Catholic system. He takes the catechism…showing how it does not line up to God’s Word. The traditions of MEN, are in error…God’s Words are NOT in error.To clarify to some about the Catechism…the Catechism “itself” is not considered a doctrine or teaching…it should be seen as more of the pedigree of an index, providing useful summaries of God’s truth (via Scripture & Tradition
M
montanaman
Guest
So you’re reading an anti-Catholic book to learn about Catholicism. Nice. Nothing like learning about someone through their enemies…
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Well, that explains a lot.
Read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
M
montanaman
Guest
That is insufficiently biased against Catholicism.Well, that explains a lot.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The logical answer is “yes” if and only if you believe the faith was intended to be handed down via writing only and not through a Church. Otherwise when Christ promised to reveal all truth through the end of the age, He could have just said, I will reveal everything by the end of the 4th century once the Bible Canon is settled.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
What other book would you recommend our friend read if he wants to learn about Catholicism? Besides the Bible of course.
Maybe he should listen to Scott Hahn’s conversion story? Available for FREE! 1 hour of your time. Step right up!
S
st_lucy
Guest
I have never understood why one would say they are trying to understand another by reading or learning about them through someone who obvious has a grudge against them.
Maybe if you are truly trying to find out who the Church is you should try to read or learn from Her herself. Read Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. That would be a great start or maybe the Surprised by Truth Series by Patrick Madrid.
Good luck in your search and next time try not to go to such obvious anti-catholic sources.
- Status