How are we saved?

[Randy_Carson]

Catholic’s talk a lot about private interpretation, which they are against. But when their church interprets scripture, it is not private. I guess it is what they call the Magesterium that interprets scripture. What a system, Huh? To me, this is how most cults work. I just don’t understand how anyone could leave their Eternal life in the hands of a churchy group. If they go to the Bible themselves and find some answers about salvation that disagree with Catholic intrerpretation, they then are accused of private interpretation. Ralphy, do you understand this?

Peace, Golfjack

If I had to leave my eternal life in the hands of some man-made Protestant group, I would feel the same as you. Heck, if my church had as little to recommend as yours, I’d be out the door in a New York minute.

Happily, I have been called into the one Church that Jesus Himself built and promised to maintain by the Holy Spirit, so I am quite confident that I am where Jesus wants me.

Golfjack, do you understand this?

 

[paul_c]

PaulC, Let’s say I’m an atheist, and I came up to you and very sincerely asked you how I could get to heaven, and after you had explained the Roman Catholics method, I would know precicely without any question that I would go to heaven. Could you do that for me now?

Sure.

First you acknowledge your faith in Jesus Christ and get Baptized. Then you lead a life of holiness, Doing god’s will by loving God above all things and loving others as yourself. If you fail to do this and commit a mortal sin, then you must desire to be reconciled to God and go through the sacrament of reconciliation. This requires a heartfelt confession to a priest, true repentence and penance in reparation of the sin…Doing this will put you back in the state of Grace. If you are in the state of Grace at death, you will go to Heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would sooner listen to what God has to say, rather than listen to what the Roman catholic “magesterium” has to say on any subject, as that would be only their own teaching, which has no value to me. Ralph

Suppose for a moment that God has established the leadership of the Catholic Church to be His representatives on earth. There is ample scriptural basis for this belief.

Then, by ignoring the teachings of the leaders that God has appointed in favor of your own alternative opinions, you are at odds with God Himself.

But, of course, your personal interpretations of scripture are always correct, aren’t they?

 

[Randy_Carson]

God speaks to me through His word, and I am directed by the Holy Spirit. Ralph

What has God told you about the baptism of infants? Is it valid or not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi PS1, Ed says the laying of hands need not be by Apostolic succession, Ananias wasn’t an apostle. In fact Paul an apotle got the Holy Spirit through him. The infallibility dogma of the Pope dogma was not proclaimed until the Vatican Council I in 1870. Why wasn’t something that important proclaimed earlier? ED

Why wasn’t the doctrine of the Trinity defined until the Council of Nicea?

Some doctrines have taken longer to develop and to understand than others.

Are you the same man that nursed from your mother’s breast 80 years ago? Do you look the same? You’ve gone through a lot of development over the decades haven’t you? But you are the same person…

Doctrine develops as we come to deeper understanding of the truths that God has already revealed.

Just because a FORMAL declaration is made at a particular point in time does not mean that the truth it contains was not present from the beginning.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Hello Ed,

How do you suppose the Church stop a book from being printed, then sold?

There are great multitudes of anti-Catholic literature, what makes this book so special as to deserve a lawsuit that in all honesty would not stop the freedom of speech enjoyed by authors? Wasn’t David Yallop’s book a “theory”? Was the author a reknown author for several books and contributions to comedy shows on British television?

Remember, the Church does not support the movies the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, yet there were no lawsuits there. I just can’t see your point from a logical point of view here.

The Church hasn’t tried to stop Jack Chick, does that validate his “comic books”?

Hi ProdicalSon1, Welcome back. I hope you had a good weekend. My point is this, using your circular argument method, if the Roman Catholic church hasn’t stopped Jack Chick or David Yallop’s well documented book, then it must be true. If someone printed an untruth about me, there would be a libellous law suit to protect my good reputation. Wouldn’t you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Golfjack this is ED. I think the Magesterium would say speaking in tongues what’s that?

Ed-

You are completely ignorant of the Catholic Charismatic movement or the fact that David DuPlessis attended the Second Vatican Council as an invited observer or that Charismatic masses have been said in St. Peter’s.

Why don’t you Google the Catholic Charismatic movement here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi ProdicalSon1, Welcome back. I hope you had a good weekend. My point is this, using your circular argument method, if the Roman Catholic church hasn’t stopped Jack Chick or David Yallop’s well documented book, then it must be true. If someone printed an untruth about me, there would be a libellous law suit to protect my good reputation. Wouldn’t you?

Good weekend for EMS, only 5 calls for our ambulance, thanks for remembering.

There are many atheist books, sex books, etc. etc. that are against all Christian Church teachings. Have all Christian Churches been invalidated by their lack of action?

There might be some confusion on the Church hasn’t stopped Yallop or Chick, therefore it must be true, part of our discussion. I thought that was the argument, or point, you were trying to make.

As I said, how can a Church, or anyone else bring a lawsuit to stop an author from writing anything, especially along the lines of a conspiracy theory? Did Bush take action against Alex Jones?

Sometimes, opposing such a book or theory appears to validate the theory. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me in Scripture where it speaks about Apostolic SUCCESSION?

I have lots.

Let’s start with these:

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

---

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

---

2 Peter 1:12-15
****So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. ****

---

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure? Peter knew that Jesus had predicted his martyrdom, and so he prepared his successor just has Jesus had prepared him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Randy’s right on this one. Only the Catholic Church does count speaking in tongues as an “initial evidence” or a requirement for salvation. Jesus is our only Judge and there is no need for an evidence for “men”. If you want to know an evidence as taught by Christ, read John 13:35.

Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Why wasn’t the doctrine of the Trinity defined until the Council of Nicea?

Some doctrines have taken longer to develop and to understand than others.

Are you the same man that nursed from your mother’s breast 80 years ago? Do you look the same? You’ve gone through a lot of development over the decades haven’t you? But you are the same person…

Doctrine develops as we come to deeper understanding of the truths that God has already revealed.

Just because a FORMAL declaration is made at a particular point in time does not mean that the truth it contains was not present from the beginning.

Hi Randy, Good to hear from you again. It’s understandable it took three hundred years to define the doctrine of the Trinity since there was much to consider, but 1800 years to define ifallibility seems to be too much time to figure out something that simple, don’t you think so? What method was used and how was it determined ? ED

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are more problems for the baptism and laying of hands the text is not clear as to when Paul received the HS. In conclusion Ananias is only fulfilling the vision given to Paul from the Lord. Of course the RCC wants to give Ananias the leading roll here and get all tangled up in the laying of hands and baptism. The mysteries of God Paul C.

First, the Catholic Church does not teach that Paul was made an Apostle through the laying on of hands by Ananias. Paul was made an Apostle by Jesus. Period.

Second, if you have any doubts about the role of laying on of hands, you should research the following verses:

1. 
   *]Luke 4:40
   When the sun was setting, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them.
   *]Acts 8:18
   When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money
   *]1 Timothy 5:22
   Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.
   *]2 Timothy 1:6
   For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
   *]Hebrews 6:2
   instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
   
   Finally, Apostolic Succession occurs when a man is made a Bishop by other Bishops who lay their hands upon him with the intent of ordaining him as a Bishop.
   
   Bishops may lay their hands on lots of folks for lots of reasons other than ordination, and apostolic succession is not at issue then.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Canto, I look at things in this manner, I once was where you are now, but you are not where I am now. It’s not only the Bible that shows me that I should come out from among them, It’s the church history too. The Oxford dictionary of popes reads like an soap opera. Read about the “Corpse Trials” . The Roman Catholic church sold church offices for money, One pope ordained an 8 year old relative to be a CARDINAL, That’s as close as one can get to a pope. etc. etc. Three Popes excummunicating each other, Is this the Holy church that Jesus founded? Did Jesus say kill everyone who opposes our doctrine? NO! Peter was called to preached to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to Gentiles. As you say, Jesus changed Peter’s name to rock, Jesus also changed Saul’s name to Paul. Since Paul hasn’t arrived yet,the keys were given to Peter. 3/4 of the New T. was written by Paul and he started the Gentile churches, Peter wrote two epistles and started the Jerusalem (Jewish) church. Paul ought to know, this is Paul speaking Gal.2:7 On the contrary, they (apostles) saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. Acts 18:2 If Peter started a church in Rome, where there is no account of it, he and all the Jews were kicked out of Rome by Cladius. Sometimes, truth offends, but facts are facts. ED

Ed-

Isn’t it amazing that all of these things occurred and yet Jesus has never abandoned the Church that He promised to build? And that despite all this, not one of these popes has ever formally taught doctrinal error?

Moreover, even in the darkest days of the papacy, God did not abrogate the authority that He gave to the Church one bit. Jesus explained this principle in scripture, and it seems that you need a refresher.

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Of course, sin and corruption in Church leadership should never be condoned but neither should they surprise us. The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

+++

So, Ed, you can hammer away all you want at the history of the Catholic Church and the papacy. Jesus told us what to expect, but he never gave us permission to ignore the authority of those he has established as the leaders of His Church. Yet, this is what you do!

Finally, while there have been seven or eight truly horrific popes in the past 2,000 years, the percentage of bad popes is less than the percentage of bad Apostles - and one of them was personally chosen by Jesus Himself!

 

[Randy_Carson]

PaulC Let’s get something straight. Those church Fathers that you seem to think that you own and can refer to, are our church Fathers too. When the Protestants saw the corruption in the Church, they came out and left you with the records. The church Fathers were like saved people of today, except they wrote letters, we now have the Bible. You have their letters, we left them with you and got out. Is that understanable? ED

Ed-

Are you saying that today you believe all of the same things that the Early Church Fathers wrote about in the first 4-500 years of Church history?

 

[Randy_Carson]

PaulC, you are critical of Martin Luther for wanting to be a married priest and creating his own religion. My Bible , as well as yours, very clearly states 1Tim 3:2, “For a Bishop must be a good man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must have only one WIFE, etc.etc.”. So what are you talking about Luther wanting to start a new religion? Didn’t you know that Peter was MARRIED too. Now see if this does not describe the Roman Catholic religion, 1Tim 4:2, “These teachers will tell lies with straight faces and do it so often that their consciences, won’t bother them. They will say it is wrong to be MARRIED and wrong to eat meat etc.etc.”. I was told in Catholic school that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays, then later it was no longer a sin. Did God change His mind?

Ed-

No offense, but you are ignorant in these matters.

Luther’s offense was that he had made a vow before God to remain unmarried, and he broke this vow. It doesn’t really matter how you try to spin it…Luther broke a promise made to God. Period. End of story.

Now, not eating meat on Friday is not a doctrine but a discipline. The Church may change its disciplines whenever it sees fit. So, yes, eating meat was a sin at one point because it was a violation of current Church discipline. It is no longer a sin (except during Lent), but this has nothing whatsoever with “God changing his mind”.

Unmarried priests are the norm in the Latin rite, but there are exceptions to this, also. This is discipline and not doctrine, and the Church has the authority to do as she pleases in this.

You need to ease up on the assertions, because you are beginning to embarass yourself.

 

[golfjack]

Does the Catholic Church have rules and regulations? When I was a Catholic, I remember being taught about the six commandments of the church. To me this goes against what Paul said in Colossians 2:21, 22, 23?
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Randy_Carson]

davidv,If my interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible, show me where. ED

Okay. Sure.

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi ProdicalSon1, Welcome back. I hope you had a good weekend. My point is this, using your circular argument method, if the Roman Catholic church hasn’t stopped Jack Chick or David Yallop’s well documented book, then it must be true. If someone printed an untruth about me, there would be a libellous law suit to protect my good reputation. Wouldn’t you?

So, because the Catholic Church fails to sue every idiot who publishes nonsense, this is a tacit admission by the Church that the information must be true?



Sometimes Protestant logic just cracks me up!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does the Catholic Church have rules and regulations? When I was a Catholic, I remember being taught about the six commandments of the church. To me this goes against what Paul said in Colossians 2:21, 22, 23?

Peace, Golfjack

Of course.

It’s called Canon Law, and there is nothing unbiblical about it.

Depending on your own fellowship affiliation, I venture to say that you are subject to your own church or denomination’s rules.