How are we saved?

[paul_c]

How in the world can Catholic teachings be Holy Spirit inspired? When they teach that there is a purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, mary was born without sin, Holy Communion is actually the flresh and blood of Jesus, the seven sacraments lead to salvation, mortal and veniel sin, your church has replaced Israel, and many other teachings that are not scriptural, how can these things be led by the Holy Spirit? You see, No way.

   Peace,  Golfjack

Golfjack, that’s a lot of questons in one short note.
But lets go through them because its part or the eductional process.

Of course, Catholicism is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That was the promise to St. Peter. Remember, the matthew 16? The Gates of Hell will not prevail over the church founded by Jesus on the Rock of Simon Peter. And remember, how the Spirit inspired the Apostles at Pentecost. that has not ceased.

Of course Purgatory exists. Do you pray for the dead? Well, there’s no point in doing so if there is only heaven (where they don’t need our prayers) or hell (where prayers can’t help). And clearly praying for the dead is scriptural. Its in Macabees and also in St. Paul .

Confessing sins to a priest comes form the commission of the apostles to be able to forgive sins. The Apostles passed that power to the priests.

Mary’s immaculate conception is Acknowledged by Gabriel, who addressed her as Full of Grace at the Annunciation. If she had sin, she could not be full of grace. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense for the Mother of God incarnate to have been specially formed, free of sin. Afterall, its a unique position.

Jesus himself said that communion was his flesh and blood in John 6. Many did not beleive if this spiritual food and left him there, didn’t they. And of course, he reiterated that it was his flesh and blood at the last supper. If you can’t believe Jesus, who can you beleve.

The seven sacraments are phsyical signs of God’s graces in a physical world. They all have their basis in scripture. We’ve already talked about communion and penance. Baptism is clearly scriptural. In the Acts account of Pentacost, St. Peter told the crowd that they needed to be baptized to be saved. Annointing of the sick is direcdtly related to Jesus’s healing and is a combination of the eucharist and confession. Ordination is discussed in Timothy and Titus. Marriage is obvious. Confirmation is the laying of hands to transfer the gifts of the holy spirit.

Mortal sin occurs when you deliberately do something you know to be seriously wrong and against the will of God. it takes you out of the state of Grace. To reconcile with God, you need to confess , repent, and do penance and be absolved by a preist, representing Jesus. A less serious (venial) sin does not take you out of the state of grace. If you die in the state of Grace, you go to heaven.

The Catholic Church as the new Isreal is captured in Revelations.

As you can see, all of your concerns are actually covered in scripture. Please stay on these pages and learn the truth. it will set you free.

 

[paul_c]

Prodical Son 1 this is what’s being quoted by Daniel on post 414. Acts 17:10-12 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (KJV) YOU THEN REPLY,
after searching the Scripture, MANY of them believed. That implies that MANY of them did not. They searched the same Scriptures, and yet disagreed. And, we can assume that the Greeks probably did not search the Scriptures at all, yet a “number of them” believed MY REPLY TO YOU IS,Who gives you the authority to ASSUME that many did not believe? " There were many that believed. That’s a statement. How many who know? That would refute your ASSUMING. That’s why Scripture tells us not to go beyond what’s written. Another method used by you, when a single question is asked of you which could prove you wrong, you respond with a page full of Scriptures. Why? two or three would be sufficient. By the time one reads all the Sriptures that you quote, the original question is lost from memory. In essence, that will mute him for a while.

Ed, lets be clear about what is going on here. The Bereans were searching the Old testament (the only scripture available) to see if the Christian claims that Jesus fullfilled the ancient prophesies were true. It doesn’t say that specifically, but it can certainly be inferred. And I agree with you that its dangerous to read beyond what the scriptures actually say. But it cuts both ways. When it says Many believed, it does not say ALL believed. We know from personal experience that it is unlikely that All would believe simply because they read the old testament. Afterall, Judas was with Jesus for 3 years and he didn’t believe. In fact, it is much more likely that some would not believe (because, afterall, not all are called) than to assume that All believe when the quote is Many believed.

Any way this is arguing semantics rather than trying to find the truth. And I think you are being a bit cynical with prodigal son. I think he’s giving you multiple quotes because he wants to show you there is overwhelming evidence to support his claim, not to distract you…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How in the world can Catholic teachings be Holy Spirit inspired? When they teach that there is a purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, mary was born without sin, Holy Communion is actually the flresh and blood of Jesus, the seven sacraments lead to salvation, mortal and veniel sin, your church has replaced Israel, and many other teachings that are not scriptural, how can these things be led by the Holy Spirit? You see, No way.

   Peace,  Golfjack

golfjack,

What a strawman argument! Are we to respond, how can the Protestant faith be Holy Spirit inspired? They don’t believe in purgatory, confessing their sins, mary was born without sin, Holy Communion is actually the body, blood, soul and divinty of Christ, the seven sacraments, the differences between mortal and veniel sin, the Church is the new Israel and they believe in non-Biblical teachings like sola scriptura, rapture, every individual can interpret scriptures for themselves? You see. NO WAY.

You have thousands of Protestant denominations, all with different doctrines based on someone’s private interpretation of scriptures. Is that being of a full accord, one mind and one judgment?

Read the early Church fathers and follow the Church the early Christians practiced Christianity in. They will have the correct doctrines over doctrines created through private interpretations 1500+ years later. It’s that simple. If the early Church matches your doctrines more closely than the Catholic Church, I want to be in that Church. Would you say the same?

If you wanted to be honest in a discussion, you would discuss one subject at a time, rather than throw up a smoke screen of a laundry list of objections, which appears to be an attempt to overwhelm someone with enough objections there would be no way to respond to them all properly in one post. Either that or it’s what one might consider a wise way to bash Catholicism, because you’re not going to listen to any explanation with an open and honest mind.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Golfjack, that’s a lot of questons in one short note.
But lets go through them because its part or the eductional process.

Of course, Catholicism is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That was the promise to St. Peter. Remember, the matthew 16? The Gates of Hell will not prevail over the church founded by Jesus on the Rock of Simon Peter. And remember, how the Spirit inspired the Apostles at Pentecost. that has not ceased.

Of course Purgatory exists. Do you pray for the dead? Well, there’s no point in doing so if there is only heaven (where they don’t need our prayers) or hell (where prayers can’t help). And clearly praying for the dead is scriptural. Its in Macabees and also in St. Paul .

Confessing sins to a priest comes form the commission of the apostles to be able to forgive sins. The Apostles passed that power to the priests.

Mary’s immaculate conception is Acknowledged by Gabriel, who addressed her as Full of Grace at the Annunciation. If she had sin, she could not be full of grace. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense for the Mother of God incarnate to have been specially formed, free of sin. Afterall, its a unique position.

Jesus himself said that communion was his flesh and blood in John 6. Many did not beleive if this spiritual food and left him there, didn’t they. And of course, he reiterated that it was his flesh and blood at the last supper. If you can’t believe Jesus, who can you beleve.

The seven sacraments are phsyical signs of God’s graces in a physical world. They all have their basis in scripture. We’ve already talked about communion and penance. Baptism is clearly scriptural. In the Acts account of Pentacost, St. Peter told the crowd that they needed to be baptized to be saved. Annointing of the sick is direcdtly related to Jesus’s healing and is a combination of the eucharist and confession. Ordination is discussed in Timothy and Titus. Marriage is obvious. Confirmation is the laying of hands to transfer the gifts of the holy spirit.

Mortal sin occurs when you deliberately do something you know to be seriously wrong and against the will of God. it takes you out of the state of Grace. To reconcile with God, you need to confess , repent, and do penance and be absolved by a preist, representing Jesus. A less serious (venial) sin does not take you out of the state of grace. If you die in the state of Grace, you go to heaven.

The Catholic Church as the new Isreal is captured in Revelations.

As you can see, all of your concerns are actually covered in scripture. Please stay on these pages and learn the truth. it will set you free.

Thanks Paul. I have addressed many of those issues with golfjack prior to his throwing them altogether.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ed, lets be clear about what is going on here. The Bereans were searching the Old testament (the only scripture available) to see if the Christian claims that Jesus fullfilled the ancient prophesies were true. It doesn’t say that specifically, but it can certainly be inferred. And I agree with you that its dangerous to read beyond what the scriptures actually say. But it cuts both ways. When it says Many believed, it does not say ALL believed. We know from personal experience that it is unlikely that All would believe simply because they read the old testament. Afterall, Judas was with Jesus for 3 years and he didn’t believe. In fact, it is much more likely that some would not believe (because, afterall, not all are called) than to assume that All believe when the quote is Many believed.

Any way this is arguing semantics rather than trying to find the truth. And I think you are being a bit cynical with prodigal son. I think he’s giving you multiple quotes because he wants to show you there is overwhelming evidence to support his claim, not to distract you…

Again, thanks Paul.

Check back in a few days.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Babylon is not Christian Rome. It could have been pagan Rome. However, some scholars think that the “great city” Babylon is Jerusalem, and they cite Revelation 11:8 as their source. “And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. Of course, there could be two “great cities” mentioned in Revelation, one referring to pagan Rome and the other to Jerusalem.

I was thinking pagan Rome of course. I’ve also heard that it could have been referencing Jerusalem. Either way, I wouldn’t argue. It’s when one tries to make it a Church that I find it a twist to fit their theology.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ed, lets be clear about what is going on here. The Bereans were searching the Old testament (the only scripture available) to see if the Christian claims that Jesus fullfilled the ancient prophesies were true. It doesn’t say that specifically, but it can certainly be inferred. And I agree with you that its dangerous to read beyond what the scriptures actually say. But it cuts both ways. When it says Many believed, it does not say ALL believed. We know from personal experience that it is unlikely that All would believe simply because they read the old testament. Afterall, Judas was with Jesus for 3 years and he didn’t believe. In fact, it is much more likely that some would not believe (because, afterall, not all are called) than to assume that All believe when the quote is Many believed.

Any way this is arguing semantics rather than trying to find the truth. And I think you are being a bit cynical with prodigal son. I think he’s giving you multiple quotes because he wants to show you there is overwhelming evidence to support his claim, not to distract you…

Hey Paul,

When the Bereans searched the scriptures, it did state many believed and I agree with you that leaves us to believe, however many, others did not agree with those that did. As for the Greeks, the Gentiles, were they allowed in the Temple to search scriptures?

 

[SHW]

Come on guys, please don’t take scripture out of context… Verse 16 of Titus is talking about the unbeliever.
Peace, Golfjack

2 Timothy 2:12 “They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.”

The “context” is this:

Paul was lamenting the fact that some persons who claim to be Christians are really not Christians. By their sinful actions, they deny Christ. Those who deny Christ by their sinful deeds/works do not inherit the kingdom of God. Jesus will deny them before His Father and they will not inherit eternal life. (Matthew 10:33, 2 Timothy 2:12)

Those who do evil “works” are no longer Christians. To be a true Christian, one must follow/imitate Christ. When a person denies Christ by his own evil free will actions, then he has become, and is now, an “unbeliever.” All true believers “obey” Christ. Disobedience is also unbelief. Obedience is also belief. They cannot be separated.

Paul’s warning:

2 Timothy 2:19 "Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who** names the name of Christ** depart from iniquity.”

If you call/name yourself “Christian,” then you must act like one or else God will not recognize you as one of His own and you will not inherit eternal life.

1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.”

If you do not “continue” to believe in the name of the Son of God, then you will no longer be saved. To “continue to believe” means to “obey his commandments.”

1 John 2:4 “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

A person can call himself a Christian, but unless he obeys God’s commandments, he is not a true Christian and he will not inherit eternal life. Persons can say that they “know” and accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, but if they are not obeying His commandments, then they are only liars. These liars end up in hell unless they repent and confess before death.

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

 

[golfjack]

Well guys, I believe one day and probably pretty soon, we will find out who is right. For those who don’t believe in the rapture, what are you going to do if about 800 million Christians depart from the earth and you remain behind? Are you going to follow the last pope, which could be the Apostate one or are you going to ask for forgiveness and finally admit your church was in error?
Peace, Golfjack

 

[SHW]

Well guys, I believe one day and probably pretty soon, we will find out who is right. For those who don’t believe in the rapture, what are you going to do if about 800 million Christians depart from the earth and you remain behind? Are you going to follow the last pope, which could be the Apostate one or are you going to ask for forgiveness and finally admit your church was in error?
Peace, Golfjack

The Rapture as defined and explained by many Protestants is a fairytale.

Did any of the early Christians get “raptured” when they faced persecution? Have any of the Christians who have been persecuted in the past 2000 years been spared?

The answer is “no.” Martyrdom is part of God’s plan. Tribulation helps to purify us so that we can inherit eternal life.

Acts 14:21-23 “And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.” 23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

Revelation 6:9-11 “When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and** it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed** as they were, was completed.”

Jesus will not return at His Second Coming until the correct number of martyrs for Christ has been reached.

If you’d like to read a paper with a Biblical perspective on the this topic, please click here.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Ed, lets be clear about what is going on here. The Bereans were searching the Old testament (the only scripture available) to see if the Christian claims that Jesus fullfilled the ancient prophesies were true. It doesn’t say that specifically, but it can certainly be inferred. And I agree with you that its dangerous to read beyond what the scriptures actually say. But it cuts both ways. When it says Many believed, it does not say ALL believed. We know from personal experience that it is unlikely that All would believe simply because they read the old testament. Afterall, Judas was with Jesus for 3 years and he didn’t believe. In fact, it is much more likely that some would not believe (because, afterall, not all are called) than to assume that All believe when the quote is Many believed.

Any way this is arguing semantics rather than trying to find the truth. And I think you are being a bit cynical with prodigal son. I think he’s giving you multiple quotes because he wants to show you there is overwhelming evidence to support his claim, not to distract you…

Paul C Thanks for your reply. My point is just as valid as PS1 “many believed” Who knows how many ?’ why should you expect me to believe in PS1 's interpretation by assumming. You are doing the same thing by assuming from past experiences, it could be in this very one incidence everbody believed. You or I don’t know that. If you want to reach the TRUTH don’t assume anything then there won’t be any problems. What makes things even worse, when I quote a Scripture that can’t possibly be misunderstood, you retort with your magestrium only can interpret Scripture and expect me to accept that. I’ll tell right up front I do NOT accept that. History reveals that much corruption prevailed with the magestrium wanting to gain power. Here’s my example of what I mean. Mat 3:11 John states,“I baptize you with water for REPENTANCE” That’s easy to understand isn’t it? John should know why he was sent. He reiterates it in v8. Acts 19:4 Paul states the same "John’s baptism was a baptism of REPENTANCE Why then should I believe that water baptism forgives sins? When Heb 9:22 also very clearly states "Without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins, which continues the BLOOD sacrifice starting with Adam & Eve and continues throughout the whole Old T. There was no water baptism for the forgiveness of sins then They had babies too. If you read my past post on how the Catholic police kidnapped a young Jewish boy Edwardo Martora from his Jewish parents, because unknown to the parents the boy’s sitter baptized him, as a result the boy became subject to the Pope.That could be the very reason why Scripture is being twisted to be able to conform to Catholic theology. I know! Martin Luther was trained in Catholic theology from which he never completely freed himself.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Paul C Thanks for your reply. My point is just as valid as PS1 “many believed” Who knows how many ?’ why should you expect me to believe in PS1 's interpretation by assumming. You are doing the same thing by assuming from past experiences, it could be in this very one incidence everbody believed. You or I don’t know that. If you want to reach the TRUTH don’t assume anything then there won’t be any problems. What makes things even worse, when I quote a Scripture that can’t possibly be misunderstood, you retort with your magestrium only can interpret Scripture and expect me to accept that. I’ll tell right up front I do NOT accept that. History reveals that much corruption prevailed with the magestrium wanting to gain power. Here’s my example of what I mean. Mat 3:11 John states,“I baptize you with water for REPENTANCE” That’s easy to understand isn’t it? John should know why he was sent. He reiterates it in v8. Acts 19:4 Paul states the same "John’s baptism was a baptism of REPENTANCE Why then should I believe that water baptism forgives sins? When Heb 9:22 also very clearly states "Without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins, which continues the BLOOD sacrifice starting with Adam & Eve and continues throughout the whole Old T. There was no water baptism for the forgiveness of sins then They had babies too. If you read my past post on how the Catholic police kidnapped a young Jewish boy Edwardo Martora from his Jewish parents, because unknown to the parents the boy’s sitter baptized him, as a result the boy became subject to the Pope.That could be the very reason why Scripture is being twisted to be able to conform to Catholic theology. I know! Martin Luther was trained in Catholic theology from which he never completely freed himself.

I don’t understand your argument Ed. If many believed, it does not mean a majority or a minority, it means not ALL of them agreed when they studied the scriptures. It could have been a majority of them or a minority of them. We simply don’t know the exact number.

Now the discussion is ignoring the point I was making, which is scriptures did not bring them to a resolution. Those that believed, believed because of the authority that St. Paul taught with. That preaching was confirmed with scriptures, but, again, the scriptures were not enough alone, to cause them all to believe. I’m not sure that Gentiles were allowed to search the scriptures. Remember, this was not a time that everyone had an Old Testament. The scriptures were kept and read from the Temple. I am sure that women were not allowed in the same part of the Temple as men were and that leaves me to “assume” they were not allowed to search the scriptures. Those Gentiles that believed, believed because of the authority by which St. Paul taught.

Look at the Apostles after Pentecost. Thousands were converted, from the Apostles speaking without scriptures. Where was the sole authority at that time?

Now instead of addressing the point of the discussion, you take off on things about the Magisterium that you find fault with. Then you ASSUME that Martin Luther never freed himself from Catholic theology. I use the word assume because we don’t know that he tried to free himself from everything. He sought to reform and not replace everything. What one needs to ask themself is how someone 1500 years later could find a total fault with the Church. That’s not what Martin Luther did. He accepted the perpetual virginity, that the Bible came from the Catholic Church and the real presence in the Eucharist. Those things were rejected by those who assumed an authority upon themselves. More and more teachings are rejected as more and more people appoint themselves as infallible with their private interpretation.

 

[EdOsiecki]

golfjack,

What a strawman argument! Are we to respond, how can the Protestant faith be Holy Spirit inspired? They don’t believe in purgatory, confessing their sins, mary was born without sin, Holy Communion is actually the body, blood, soul and divinty of Christ, the seven sacraments, the differences between mortal and veniel sin, the Church is the new Israel and they believe in non-Biblical teachings like sola scriptura, rapture, every individual can interpret scriptures for themselves? You see. NO WAY.

You have thousands of Protestant denominations, all with different doctrines based on someone’s private interpretation of scriptures. Is that being of a full accord, one mind and one judgment?

Read the early Church fathers and follow the Church the early Christians practiced Christianity in. They will have the correct doctrines over doctrines created through private interpretations 1500+ years later. It’s that simple. If the early Church matches your doctrines more closely than the Catholic Church, I want to be in that Church. Would you say the same?

If you wanted to be honest in a discussion, you would discuss one subject at a time, rather than throw up a smoke screen of a laundry list of objections, which appears to be an attempt to overwhelm someone with enough objections there would be no way to respond to them all properly in one post. Either that or it’s what one might consider a wise way to bash Catholicism, because you’re not going to listen to any explanation with an open and honest mind.

Prodical son1 You dislike many questions thrown at you at one time, I don’t either so don’t throw many many many Scriptures to confirm a single point when you are asked a question. I’ll give you only one topic okay? Where in Scripture does it differenciates venial and mortal sins?. If I stole a dollar is that a venial or mortal sin? Likewise, if I stole a thousand dollars what sin is that? In this example, can you tell me the precise place where it changes from a venial to mortal sin? Who determinds it? And where is the Scripture reference? Ed

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodical son1 You dislike many questions thrown at you at one time, I don’t either so don’t throw many many many Scriptures to confirm a single point when you are asked a question. I’ll give you only one topic okay? Where in Scripture does it differenciates venial and mortal sins?. If I stole a dollar is that a venial or mortal sin? Likewise, if I stole a thousand dollars what sin is that? In this example, can you tell me the precise place where it changes from a venial to mortal sin? Who determinds it? And where is the Scripture reference? Ed

There are a couple of reasons I use a lot of scriptures to make a point. One, I love the scriptures and appreciate discussions that make me search them and I love to share them. Being most Protestants profess “sola scriptura”, I just naturally assumed they would appreciate to read them as well. There I go assuming again. Two, while it’s possible to argue that one verse can be taken out of context, it’s harder to make that argument against a group of scriptures. It’s an effort to show that scriptures are being read within scriptures. Third, while you may not agree with the interpretation, it is my goal to show that Catholic beliefs come from an interpretation of scriptures. There are many Protestants that make the accusation that most of Catholic beliefs are “added” or non-scriptural. That is simply not the case.

1Jn 5:16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.
1Jn 5:17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

Mat 12:32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

I’ll stop at two passages, since you brought up the number of scriptures that I offer in discussions.

We see there are sins and sins unto death. The second passage speaks of different kinds of sins and also brings up another point. That is, it seems to imply there is forgivness of sins in this world and the world to come.

The differences between mortal and venial sins is listed below.

Mortal sin

1. 
   *]its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;
   *]it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded into the conscience of every human being);
   *]it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.
   
   Venial sin
   
   1. 
      *]It does not concern a “grave matter”,
      *]It is not committed with full knowledge, or
      *]It is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.
      

      The Catechism defines grave matter as "violations of what Jesus told to the man who asked him what the most important commandments were, namely, “do not kill”, “do not steal”, “do not commit adultery”, “do not bear false witness”, “do not defraud” and “honour your father and your mother”.[1]All of these, however, are subject both to the conditions above and to mitigating circumstances (like mental illness, emotional or behavioral disturbance, insanity, retardation, young age, affective immaturity, or developmental disorders) of the individual situation. The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into the mortal and venial categories. Rather, it is generally considered a matter for a well-formed conscience to decide after a comprehensive, prayer-filled, deliberate examination of conscience. These sins must be specifically confessed and named, giving details about the context of each sin: what sin, why, against what or whom, the number and type of occurrences, and any other factors that may exacerbate or lessen one’s responsibility and culpability.

 

[EdOsiecki]

I don’t understand your argument Ed. If many believed, it does not mean a majority or a minority, it means not ALL of them agreed when they studied the scriptures. It could have been a majority of them or a minority of them. We simply don’t know the exact number.

Now the discussion is ignoring the point I was making, which is scriptures did not bring them to a resolution. Those that believed, believed because of the authority that St. Paul taught with. That preaching was confirmed with scriptures, but, again, the scriptures were not enough alone, to cause them all to believe. I’m not sure that Gentiles were allowed to search the scriptures. Remember, this was not a time that everyone had an Old Testament. The scriptures were kept and read from the Temple. I am sure that women were not allowed in the same part of the Temple as men were and that leaves me to “assume” they were not allowed to search the scriptures. Those Gentiles that believed, believed because of the authority by which St. Paul taught.

Look at the Apostles after Pentecost. Thousands were converted, from the Apostles speaking without scriptures. Where was the sole authority at that time?

Now instead of addressing the point of the discussion, you take off on things about the Magisterium that you find fault with. Then you ASSUME that Martin Luther never freed himself from Catholic theology. I use the word assume because we don’t know that he tried to free himself from everything. He sought to reform and not replace everything. What one needs to ask themself is how someone 1500 years later could find a total fault with the Church. That’s not what Martin Luther did. He accepted the perpetual virginity, that the Bible came from the Catholic Church and the real presence in the Eucharist. Those things were rejected by those who assumed an authority upon themselves. More and more teachings are rejected as more and more people appoint themselves as infallible with their private interpretation.

ProdicalSon1 There you go again ASSUMING they were not allowed to teach Scriptures. I’m not ASSUMING anything about Martin Luther, it’s a fact, he kept a lot of Catholicism. My point is this, I’m being as obnoxious as you are when you want to end a question by asking for a Scripture reference when you know there isn’t any. But it’s okay for you to prove your point by ASSUMING when you haven’t a Scripture reference. I’m trying to show you your method of operation, which is a no win situation for someone who wants to honestly debate you. ED P.S. John 6:63 Jesus’ dialog on eating His flesh and blood. “The Words I have spoken to you are Spirit”. That’s easy for me to understand. So why Transubstantiation? Virginity Mat 1:24 Joseph had no union with Mary UNTILL she gave birth to a Son.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdicalSon1 There you go again ASSUMING they were not allowed to teach Scriptures. I’m not ASSUMING anything about Martin Luther, it’s a fact, he kept a lot of Catholicism. My point is this, I’m being as obnoxious as you are when you want to end a question by asking for a Scripture reference when you know there isn’t any. But it’s okay for you to prove your point by ASSUMING when you haven’t a Scripture reference. I’m trying to show you your method of operation, which is a no win situation for someone who wants to honestly debate you. ED

I’m not sure I follow you about assuming they were not allowed to teach scriptures. Teaching scriptures includes an oral tradition. See Nehemiah 8. In the instance of the Bereans, there was no teaching scriptures. St. Paul preached to them and they searched the scriptures to see if those things were true.

We, Catholics, have been, and are continously, asked to produce verses to specifically state something, while those making the demands ignore scriptures that imply certain beliefs. When we use the same “method of operation” it’s unfair? I don’t see it that way, as there is an easily viewed implication of Catholic interpretation, but there are Protestant beliefs that lack even an implication.

Let me give a quick example of both scenarios.

Jesus tells Peter he is rock and upon this rock Jesus will build His Church. He gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and tells him, whatsover he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. Christ appears to the Apostles before His ascension and tells him 3 times to feed His sheep. Yet scriptures do not say, Peter was the leader of the Church, so according to Protestants it’s acceptable to reject Peter’s primacy.

Protestants tell us the Bible is the sole authority and that we should read the Bible for our own interpretation. Yet nothing in the Bible says that the Bible is the sole authority and it speaks against private interpretation.

Now, on the other hand Protestants constantly accuse Catholics of “twisting” or misinterpreting scriptures. All we ask is that you show us by what authority one can make that claim. You can’t convince us the Church does not have that authority unless you can produce the scriptures that say so. To us it’s an arrogant argument for someone to tell us their private interpretation is correct over the Church interpretation, especially in light of the fact that many denominations claim to have the correct interpretation, but those interpretations do not agree with other Protestant interpretations.

It is also illogical for us to believe that the Church has the wrong interpretation when it’s a documented fact that the Church defined the canon of the New Testament and preserved the scriptures for 1500 years, prior to the Protestants taking it out on their own and saying they have a better interpretation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdicalSon1 There you go again ASSUMING they were not allowed to teach Scriptures. I’m not ASSUMING anything about Martin Luther, it’s a fact, he kept a lot of Catholicism. My point is this, I’m being as obnoxious as you are when you want to end a question by asking for a Scripture reference when you know there isn’t any. But it’s okay for you to prove your point by ASSUMING when you haven’t a Scripture reference. I’m trying to show you your method of operation, which is a no win situation for someone who wants to honestly debate you. ED P.S. John 6:63 Jesus’ dialog on eating His flesh and blood. “The Words I have spoken to you are Spirit”. That’s easy for me to understand. So why Transubstantiation? Virginity Mat 1:24 Joseph had no union with Mary UNTILL she gave birth to a Son.

One verse can be taken out of context and a portion of that verse is even easier to take out of context.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

You have to read scriptures within scriptures. Below is a scriptural explanation of John 6:63.

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Those who could not bear His words, understood what He was saying. They left Him and walked with Him no more. Did He stop them or explain the symbolism? Did He privately explain the symbolism to His Apostles, as He often had to do? No, He turned to the Apostles and asked them if they would go away also.

Until. Let me use an analogy here. If you tell your children to behave until you get home, are you telling them it’s ok to misbehave once you return?

If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did Jesus tell St. John to care for His mother? Wouldn’t Jewish tradition have required siblings to have taken over? You get all over me for “assuming” but it’s ok to assume Mary and Joseph had other children, even if scriptures do not tell us Mary had other children? Is this a double-standard I’ve been trying to explain to you?

I can provide Old Testament verses that show Jewish tradition of a woman binding herself to an oath, that even her father and husband had to respect, but then that’s an assumption because scriptures don’t specifically state Mary had no more children.

This is an example of a double-standard used and a circular argument. It will get neither of us anywhere. Now, let me ask a very important question at this point. Does one believing in the perpetual virginity or not play any role in one’s salvation? Or, is it a chipping point trying to break down Catholicism in some fashion?

The disbelief of the perpetual virginity only came to pass since the Protestant reformation. It is documented by the early Church fathers, up to the reformation, and including some of the reformers themselves. How does one justify throwing away a belief that survived over 1500 years? To me it’s because they are viewing scriptures through modern minds and not the mind of the times the events took place.

 

[EdOsiecki]

There are a couple of reasons I use a lot of scriptures to make a point. One, I love the scriptures and appreciate discussions that make me search them and I love to share them. Being most Protestants profess “sola scriptura”, I just naturally assumed they would appreciate to read them as well. There I go assuming again. Two, while it’s possible to argue that one verse can be taken out of context, it’s harder to make that argument against a group of scriptures. It’s an effort to show that scriptures are being read within scriptures. Third, while you may not agree with the interpretation, it is my goal to show that Catholic beliefs come from an interpretation of scriptures. There are many Protestants that make the accusation that most of Catholic beliefs are “added” or non-scriptural. That is simply not the case.

1Jn 5:16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.
1Jn 5:17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

Mat 12:32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

I’ll stop at two passages, since you brought up the number of scriptures that I offer in discussions.

We see there are sins and sins unto death. The second passage speaks of different kinds of sins and also brings up another point. That is, it seems to imply there is forgivness of sins in this world and the world to come.

The differences between mortal and venial sins is listed below.

Mortal sin

1. 
   *]its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;
   *]it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded into the conscience of every human being);
   *]it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.
   
   Venial sin
   
   1. 
      *]It does not concern a “grave matter”,
      *]It is not committed with full knowledge, or
      *]It is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.

1. 1. 
      Who determinds grave matter? I aked you for a precise breaking point in my one dollar vs. thousand dollar example but you failed to answer. My Bible tells me in James 2:10 if a person keeps every law of God but then makes one slip, is just as guilty as a person who breaks every law there is. Maybe this may help you better to understand me. Your theology tells me that if I stole one apple that wouldn’t be a grave matter, but if I cut down your tree and stole them all, that would be a grave matter. Right? Can you tell me whether Adam & Eve’s taking an apple was a venial or mortal sin? Point TWO above it’s better to have more than one Scripture to determind the correct interpertation of a Scripture, That’s exactly what I told you way back in one of my posts, but when I did so, you silenced me when you asked me where’s the Scripture reference for that. That’s what I mean there’s a no win discussion with you. After I realized that we were on a spinning wheel, I went back to my posts to study your method of operation and that’s what I came up with. Sorry about, it’s the truth. ED

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who determinds grave matter? I aked you for a precise breaking point in my one dollar vs. thousand dollar example but you failed to answer. My Bible tells me in James 2:10 if a person keeps every law of God but then makes one slip, is just as guilty as a person who breaks every law there is. Maybe this may help you better to understand me. Your theology tells me that if I stole one apple that wouldn’t be a grave matter, but if I cut down your tree and stole them all, that would be a grave matter. Right? Can you tell me whether Adam & Eve’s taking an apple was a venial or mortal sin? Point TWO above it’s better to have more than one Scripture to determind the correct interpertation of a Scripture, That’s exactly what I told you way back in one of my posts, but when I did so, you silenced me when you asked me where’s the Scripture reference for that. That’s what I mean there’s a no win discussion with you. After I realized that we were on a spinning wheel, I went back to my posts to study your method of operation and that’s what I came up with. Sorry about, it’s the truth. ED

Well, I didn’t answer a breaking point for you, because it’s not for me to determine. Only you can look at the criterias for mortal and venial sin and make that determination with a faith formed conscience. A confessor can help.

Here’s a portion of the quote I provided earlier.

The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into the mortal and venial categories. Rather, it is generally considered a matter for a well-formed conscience to decide after a comprehensive, prayer-filled, deliberate examination of conscience. These sins must be specifically confessed and named, giving details about the context of each sin: what sin, why, against what or whom, the number and type of occurrences, and any other factors that may exacerbate or lessen one’s responsibility and culpability.

Our sins will be judged and it’s up to us to make the determination of their severity. In my opinion, with the loss of grace that comes with a venial sin, all sin is serious. Why else would St. Paul tell us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Why did St. Paul worry that even he could fall?

I feel you know the answer to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge, if that’s the “apple” you’re referring too. That was a mortal sin to go against a commandment of God, in my opinion. That was a sin that changed mankind. God told them if they ate from the tree they would die, but did they die? It was not an immediate death of the flesh. Was it a death that could be observed with the human eye? I don’t believe it was. Was it a removal of the essence that allowed everlasting life allowing man to be with God, that our faith in Christ’s sacrifice returned to us? I believe it was. The “ousious” is something I’ve recently started studying. It’s very deep and I can see how Arius arrived at his theological view, but with my faith in His Church, I know the Holy Spirit guided it in the correct view.

All Protestant vs. Catholic discussions seem to be on a “spinning wheel”. As I told you, I don’t expect a conversion, only the Holy Spirit can move one in that direction, my goal is to demonstrate to Protestants that Catholics are Christians, with doctrines and beliefs that come from an interpretation of scriptures, even if the Protestants don’t agree with the interpretation. Knowing the belief of sola scriptura and private interpretation, I’m going to hold a Protestant’s feet to the fire and make them show me where they get the authority to say that interpretation is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. So far, none have been able to do so.

My time is growing short. I don’t know how much more I will be able to respond too this evening, as I get ready for my extended shift. Others can answer any questions you might have and I feel confident the Catholic response will be the same on most objections. I’ll check back as I can, but I expect it might be 3 days before I can put my full attention into these discussions.

God bless,

 

[paul_c]

Who determinds grave matter? I aked you for a precise breaking point in my one dollar vs. thousand dollar example but you failed to answer. My Bible tells me in James 2:10 if a person keeps every law of God but then makes one slip, is just as guilty as a person who breaks every law there is. Maybe this may help you better to understand me. Your theology tells me that if I stole one apple that wouldn’t be a grave matter, but if I cut down your tree and stole them all, that would be a grave matter. Right? Can you tell me whether Adam & Eve’s taking an apple was a venial or mortal sin? Point TWO above it’s better to have more than one Scripture to determind the correct interpertation of a Scripture, That’s exactly what I told you way back in one of my posts, but when I did so, you silenced me when you asked me where’s the Scripture reference for that. That’s what I mean there’s a no win discussion with you. After I realized that we were on a spinning wheel, I went back to my posts to study your method of operation and that’s what I came up with. Sorry about, it’s the truth. ED

Ed,
I think the problem is in how we approach our faith and that leads to misunderstanding. You see, we believe that we are given sufficient grace to be saved when we are baptized. This is a gift that came from Jesus’ sacrifice and makes us part of the Body of Christ. Now as members of the body of Christ, we are called to holiness. Our goal is to follow Christ in loving God and Neighbor. When we do these things, we are sanctified. When we turn from God through sin, we lose grace. Through God’s mercy, We can be reconciled to God through the sacrament of reconciliation and return to the state of Grace . If we die in the state of grace, we will be rewarded in heaven, If we do not, we will be condemned to Hell. You see, life for us is a journey toward holiness. We do the best we can and pray for God’s mercy in the end.

You won’t see a list of mortal versus venial sins because we realize that God will judge what is in men’s hearts and that things are very rarely black and white. In the end, its whether you loved or not. Its as simple as that. In your example, stealing a dollar can be just as hurtful as stealing $1000. Its not the amount that matters, its about loving or failing to love, doing God’s will or doing things for selfish reasons. I think it is clear that eating the apple was a selfish act and not one of love. Are you seeing how this works?