I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Katholikos]

Part 1

Ozzie:

You guys always answer in this manner. Though there are thousands of “Protestant” churches there are not “thousands” of interpretations regarding Christ and salvation taught amongst them. Thousands teach the same regarding salvation: by grace through faith alone.

That’s hardly surprising since Luther established Protestantism on the three pillars of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia. There the similarity ends. By definition, every denomination is distinguished by one or more doctrines that disagree with every other denomination. Protestantism is doctrinal and moral chaos. Sacred Scripture says salvation is NOT by faith alone (James 2:24), yet you (and others) insist on believing that.

I don’t think you know what most “Protestant” churches teach, anyway,

I have not personally belonged to “most Protestant churches,” but their doctrines are readily available for examination and study. I own several books on the subject, and there is also ample info on the Net. I’ve studied denominations for many years.

since you previously accused all of telling their members that once saved they can go out and live a sin-filled life. And you’ve never recanted from that statement.

What Protestant churches may tell their members is not the issue. The doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved is that nothing, not even sin, will separate ‘true believers’ from God. Preservation of the Saints means that the “elect” cannot lose their salvation – period. And I said that I personally was taught this pernicious, unbiblical doctrine.

Strange statement indeed since Christ Himself taught that all who believe in Him HAVE eternal life. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that God gives any other life to the BELIEVER other than “eternal” life.

Here you go again, affirming what you just denied – you claim that belief is all that is necessary for salvation.

But that’s not all that Christ Himself taught. The entire revelation of God is not contained in a verse or two. In fact, the entire revelation wasn’t written at all until the Church wrote part of it down! Proof-texting Protestants don’t know how to read the Bible.

And Paul explicitly taught that by grace through faith one is SAVED (I’ve already refuted the idea of past, present and future tense of “saved”), and HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED by faith. Peter states that the believer has been REDEEMED by His blood.

But this is not the sum total of the teaching of St. Peter or St. Paul. This is your misinterpretation.

All this was taught and written within the first century.

No – “This” – meaning your personal interpretation – was not being taught in the first century. The Apostles did not teach salvation by faith alone. Your interpretation originated in the 16th century.

I don’t deny that the Roman church, corporately, rejects this, and various “Protestant” churches as well, but thousands do not and are in agreement.

The Catholic Church – not just the Roman Church, which is only one of 23 autonomous Churches which comprize the Catholic Church – rejects it because the Apostles didn’t teach it. The Catholic Faith comes to us from the Apostles. The Church is 2,000 years old.

continued

 

[Katholikos]

Can you show me one place in the book of Acts where the other Apostles call Peter, “our leader?”

You’re putting demands on the Holy Spirit? Unless these specific words appear in the NT, you will not believe that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles? Now, that’s logic (NOT)!

Peter was obviously the leader. Christ built His Church upon Peter (Mt 16:18-19) and again reiterated and confirmed Peter’s leadership in John 21:15-19 (feed my lambs, tend [rule] my sheep, feed my sheep). Christ is the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-16; Peter rules/tends/feeds the sheep of the one sheepfold, the Church. In all the lists of the apostles, Peter’s name is listed first, Judas’s is last. Among the 12, Peter’s name occurs 195 times; the rest of the Apostles are named only 130 times collectively. St. John comes in second by having his name mentioned 29 times. Peter alone speaks on behalf of all the Apostles. Peter (Mt 16:18) = Kepha (Jn 1:42) = Rock.

Again, the Scriptures must be read holistically. There are many other examples of Peter’s leadership: he presided, for example, over the Council of Jerusalem.

Humm, based on this teaching, then Paul was the first “Protestant,” since He did not consider himself, or his ministry, subordinate to Peter or any of the other Apostles.

Nope. Luther was the first Protestant. Paul was subordinate to Peter, as were the Eleven. I’ll provide the Scriptures later.

The Book of Acts is an historical account of Christ “building” His *“universal” *Church, being built upon the foundation of the Apostles, He Himself being the corner stone. There are no Popes or Prelates mentioned there.

Pope is the English translation of the Greek pappas, a child’s term for father. The Latin word for father is papa. All priests (presbyters) are called father in imitation of St. Paul (1 Cor 4:14-15: I became your [spiritual] father in Christ through the Gospel . . .).

Can you show me where, in Acts, the Church is called the “new Israel?”

It has to be in Acts, huh? Sorry the Holy Spirit didn’t know that’s where the reference had to be before you would accept it. It’s in Galatians 6:16 (see also Romans 11:26 and James 1:1).

The N.T., and all Scripture is divine in origin, not ecclesiastical (2 Tim. 3:16).

The Catholic Church was the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing, selecting, collecting, and canonizing, naming and preserving the New Testament; and canonizing, naming and preserving the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit, God Himself, was the proximate or primary author and cause of the Scriptures, but the Church (which is the People of God united under Peter and his successors) put pen to papyrus, responding to His inspiration, wrote the NT and formed the Bible.

continued

 

[Katholikos]

The Greek word “inspired” there is theopheustos, literally meaning “God-breathed.”

I again ask you how you distinguish – of your own knowledge – those writings that are “inspired” from those that are not. And I again assert that you nor anyone else has such knowledge and therefore must rely upon the declaration of the Catholic Church that these writings – and no others – are the “Scriptures.” The authority of the Catholic Church comes from Christ, her founder.

And the Book of Acts is not about the acts of the Apostles, but the acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. Just as it is Christ who is “building” His Church, even to this very day.

Acts is the first written history of the nascent Catholic Church. The entire NT is a record of the spiritual life of the Church during the first 100 years or so of its existence. It’s the Church’s ‘family album.’ I can’t emphasize it too much or too often: The NT is not an instruction book in Christianity – it is not a textbook! It was written by members of an already believing Church to other believers in the Church. It can only be understood if the reader knows what the Church believed and taught at the time the NT was written, since the NT is but a reflection of the teaching of the Church.

And will continue until the Rapture of it.

The Rapture was invented by John Nelson Darby, the father of “dispensationalism,” in 1827, and has its roots in a misinterpretation of the fourth and fifth chapters of 1 Thessalonians.

JMJ Jay

 

[SPOKENWORD]

When Jesus gave the Gift of Salvation to us,it is a gift and we recieve it,now its our choice what we do with it. It is unmerited,we didnt deserve it,but out of His love He gave it to us. Are we saved without us taking any action? I believe not. We need to walk daily and crucify our flesh.We need to take our sins and bring them to the cross every day.That what Jesus meant when He said to pick up the cross and follow me.I do all these things because thats what it takes to follow Christ.I pray that I can stay in the state of grace every moment of the day. Thats the challenge,to fight the good fight and hold off to the finish line where Jesus is waiting for me. Sounds Catholic?

 

[WBB]

exrc:

Lisa,

Being RC for 20 years, then ex- roman catholic for 20 some years now, I have this advice for you. Stay where you are! If you agree with OZZIE on all these issues, then it sounds like you are in a good place. OZZIE is right on with all his posts I have read. Sorry about not contributing sooner, but I was answering another thread. Read Galatians, it describes RC’s to an eeeeerie T. Even adding only .000000000000000001% of your works to grace, nullifies grace. The RC religion is very dangerous, don’t be fooled or bewitched like the Galatians were. Pray for them intensely, because the powerful spirit of legalism has them in bondage to the law.

As for these 30,000 protestant denominations that are being proclaimed by the RC parrots. Read( David A. Barrett’s world christian encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions in the Modern world A.D. 1900-2000) which is where RC apologists got there figures erroneously, or go to www.NTRMin.org
under catholcism category.

Lisa,ozzie,spokenword,grace and peace to you from our Lord!

In love ex-RC Dan!!!

P.S. I’m up here in RC country( Buffalo N.Y.) where almost every RC I know voted for Kerry. Whether you like it or not, THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

Funny. I was thinking that the protestants were the ones bewitched! Wake up exrc, you are living in blindness. No protestant has yet to show me where in the bible it says that the bible is the sole source of authority for Christians, however, St. Paul does describe authority resting in “the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the Truth.” Keep in mind, satan himself will use the scriptures to discredit God’s Church. Perhaps you should think about that before you go off interpreting Galatians which was really about Jews who were subverting the Truth of the Gospel as proclaimed by St. Paul.

 

[WBB]

SPOKENWORD:

When Jesus gave the Gift of Salvation to us,it is a gift and we recieve it,now its our choice what we do with it. It is unmerited,we didnt deserve it,but out of His love He gave it to us. Are we saved without us taking any action? I believe not. We need to walk daily and crucify our flesh.We need to take our sins and bring them to the cross every day.That what Jesus meant when He said to pick up the cross and follow me.I do all these things because thats what it takes to follow Christ.I pray that I can stay in the state of grace every moment of the day. Thats the challenge,to fight the good fight and hold off to the finish line where Jesus is waiting for me. Sounds Catholic?

It absolutely sounds Catholic! We are to take that salvation which is the free gift of God and run the race.

 

[Madaglan]

I just find it humorous how many Protestants demand, Show me where that is in the Bible!!! Little do they know that their English Bibles are translations and that when one reads the translation, one loses meaning.

One is at a significant disadvantage, I believe, whe one has to use a translation rather than the original text in the original language (here Hebrew and Greek) to defend a belief.

The fact is, many Protestants create doctrines by reading an imperfect image of the Word of God; they read an English or other common language translation. Differences in the original text, which are rather apparent, become lost in the translation process. Therefore, you get people who see the word “justify” in one book of the Bible, and then automatically try to associate it with the word “justify” in another book of the Bible. Little do they know that in the original texts the two original words have different spellings and significations.

Another example: When Jesus in Luke tells his apostles at the Last Supper to drink and eat “in remembrance of me.” If you take the original word translated into remembrance and compare it with the rest of the original Septuaginut Bible, you will find that the word is used in the Bible almost exclusively in association with sacrafice. The Greek word is also used in the sense of making past events present.

In any case, the fact that the Catholic Church often makes a distinction between the uses of Greek words in the text is one reason why I find Protestant positions erroneous.

 

[Pax]

SPOKENWORD:

When Jesus gave the Gift of Salvation to us,it is a gift and we recieve it,now its our choice what we do with it. It is unmerited,we didnt deserve it,but out of His love He gave it to us. Are we saved without us taking any action? I believe not. We need to walk daily and crucify our flesh.We need to take our sins and bring them to the cross every day.That what Jesus meant when He said to pick up the cross and follow me.I do all these things because thats what it takes to follow Christ.I pray that I can stay in the state of grace every moment of the day. Thats the challenge,to fight the good fight and hold off to the finish line where Jesus is waiting for me. Sounds Catholic?

Absolutely

 

[Pax]

exrc,

Your uncritical support of everything Ozzie said in this thread is an indication that you simply lap up anything that is anti-Catholic. In one of Ozzie’s dizzier posts he claimed that “faith” is not a gift from God. This is just one example of the something that Ozzie claimed that doesn’t even fit Protestant theology let alone scripture.

As for Barrett’s work on the number of Protestant denominations, I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. First of all Barrett isn’t a Catholic so don’t lay his data at our door step. Your argument is with his methodology and conclusions. As Catholics we don’t need to say that there are 30,000 plus denominations as he claims. We merely state that there are literally thousands of Protestant denominations and for that there is no counter argument. Every small independent “Bible only” Church has its unique character when it comes to teachings and doctrines. And yes there are literally thousands of these.

I frequently here non-Catholic Christians claim that these differences don’t matter as long as we all agree on the essentials. The problem is they can’t even agree on what they think are the essentials. Besides, in Matthew 4:4 Jesus says, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by **every word ** that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” Jesus doesn’t suggest that we attempt to divide God’s word into some set of essentials and non-essentials.

Okay, a lot of Catholics did vote for Kerry as did a lot of non-Catholic Christians. And yes the percentage of Catholics that voted for Kerry was greater than that of Evangelicals. While I am not happy about that, it really proves nothing. The Catholic Church has taken the strongest and most consistent stand against abortion of any Christian Church anywhere in the world. Just because there are dissenters from the faith means nothing. You, yourself, have not only dissented but you have left the Church because you can’t see the truth. In one sense I will give you credit for having left the Church. You at least left the Church and you are, therefore, not a hypocritic as are Kerry and others.

So you’re not surprised that many Catholics voted for Kerry and you think this is indicative of something. You apparently think that it’s okay to make judgments about the Church and devout Catholics based on something that marginal Catholics are doing. You have no sense of justice or what it means to be Christian. Instead, you simply take cheap shot after cheap shot without thinking about what it is you are saying.

Just remember that Al Gore and Bill Clinton were once pro-life, but they sold their souls for political gain when they turned pro-abortion just prior to running for the highest political offices in the country. So…would it be fair for me to say that these “born again” non-Catholic Christians did exactly what we would expect them to do simply because they believe as you do? No it would not, and many of my Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends are upset with these men while unfortunately some others I know take the same position as Clinton and Gore. Try thinking things out once in awhile. You might learn something.

You make absurd attacks on the Church and although you claim to have been Catholic for twenty years, you obviously know very little of the Church and her teachings. This was pointed out to you numerous times on another thread, but you still claim to be an expert. It’s pathetic and shameful that you persist in this fashion. Make whatever points you wish from scripture or logic, but please spare us the bigoted remarks and your inflated claims about knowing the Catholic Church.

 

[Pax]

exrc:

Lisa,

Read Galatians, it describes RC’s to an eeeeerie T. Even adding only .000000000000000001% of your works to grace, nullifies grace. The RC religion is very dangerous, don’t be fooled or bewitched like the Galatians were. Pray for them intensely, because the powerful spirit of legalism has them in bondage to the law.

exrc,

Obviously, it would help if you knew what you were talking about. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that nullifies grace. It has been pointed out on this thread as well as the other thread that you participated in that we believe that everything including “our works” are by the grace of God. The works that we do are nothing less than “the work of the Fathers hands in our hearts, minds, body, and soul.” It is all by grace. You have already been educated by knowledgeable Catholics on this subject yet you persist in twisting scripture and Catholic teaching. Why is that the case?

You call us legalists. What a joke that is! This is the typical response when you are backed into a scriptural corner that is made from your erroneous, man made traditions. I have offered both you and Ozzie some free reading material in the way of sixty five plus verses of scripture that totally refute the teaching of “once saved always saved.” Neither of you have taken me up on the offer. In the interest of charity and your spiritual welfare my offer still stands. If you want the file of verses send me a private message and I’ll email them to you.

Go in Peace and serve the Lord.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Something that might help you understand and appreciate Catholic teaching on justification/salvation is the biblical teachings on “covenants.” Obviously, a post or even a series of posts will not cover this topic but try understanding your relationship with the Lord from this point of view. You will notice that all biblical convenants are oaths between God and His people. They always involve God and His people and they are never just God or just His people.

I have not only studied the actual Biblical covenants but I have taught studies on them as well. There are actually eight literal Biblical covenants, two of them are conditional and six are unconditional. One must be familiar with these covenants in order to properly understand the Scriptures. Your lack of understanding of these Biblical covenants, Pax, is why you pull and quote verses out of context. If you would like I could send you a private message listing and explaining these covenants. What think ye?

 

[Ozzie]

Katholikos:

Christ built His Church upon Peter (Mt 16:18-19)

A very disputed interpretation. Even Augustine changed his mind and taught that the reference to building His Church was based on Peter’s confession, not Peter Himself.

confirmed Peter’s leadership in John 21:15-19 (feed my lambs, tend [rule] my sheep, feed my sheep).

This is hardly a confirmation of his leadership. Certainly his Apostleship, but not “leadership.” You’d have to read that into Christ’s words, you couldn’t deduce that from those works.

In all the lists of the apostles, Peter’s name is listed first, Judas’s is last. Among the 12, Peter’s name occurs 195 times; the rest of the Apostles are named only 130 times collectively. St. John comes in second by having his name mentioned 29 times. Peter alone speaks on behalf of all the Apostles.

You think stats like this “prove” Peter’s leadership? Can you get more subjective than this? Please!!!

It’s in Galatians 6:16 (see also Romans 11:26 and James 1:1).

You claim the above verses prove that the church is the “new Israel.” Gal. 6:16, in context, is in reference to believing Jews, like Paul Himself; these being the real Israel, as opposed to those who merely bear the name (cf. Rom. 2:29); Rom. 11:26 is actually a confirmation by Paul that national Israel is yet to be saved. A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the *“fulness of the Gentiles has come in.” *That is, come into the Church Christ is now building calling it out of both Jews and Gentiles. THEN God will resume to fulfill His prophetic promises to national Israel:the Deliverer (Messiah) comes from Zion and He removes ungodliness from Jacob, fulfills His unconditional covenants with them and takes away their sins (cf. Zech. 12:10; Hos. 2:14-23). James 1:1 is literal. James was writing to actual Jews. The Church is never described as being *“in the dispersion.” *The “Diaspora” is individual Jews living among the Gentile nations. This passage does teach that the Church is the “new Israel.”

I again ask you how you distinguish – of your own knowledge – those writings that are “inspired” from those that are not. And I again assert that you nor anyone else has such knowledge and therefore must rely upon the declaration of the Catholic Church that these writings – and no others – are the “Scriptures.”

Councils only ratified what was already understood by the churches. In fact, Peter himself even understood that Paul’s letter were Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). The early Church writers quoted extensively from the N.T. Books, and, as one of his first acts, Constantine employed Eusebius to put together 50 Bibles for the churches in Constantinople. His N.T. consisted of exactly the same Books that make up our N.T. today. The Council of Carthage which convened later merely ratified what was already the general concensus of all the churches of the Empire. The N.T. Scriptures did not become the Word of God by being declared that are by men, they were the written Word of God the very moment they were penned. It wouldn’t have mattered if no man recognized them as so. That wouldn’t change their divine origin. Your argument is like saying God is God only because men declare Him God.

 

[exrc]

Originally written by Pax,

exrc,

Your uncritical support of everything Ozzie said in this thread is an indication that you simply lap up anything that is anti-Catholic. In one of Ozzie’s dizzier posts he claimed that “faith” is not a gift from God. This is just one example of the something that Ozzie claimed that doesn’t even fit Protestant theology let alone scripture.

Pax, I said the ones I had read. If he said that then I disagree with him on that point.

As for Barrett’s work on the number of Protestant denominations, I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. First of all Barrett isn’t a Catholic so don’t lay his data at our door step. Your argument is with his methodology and conclusions. As Catholics we don’t need to say that there are 30,000 plus denominations as he claims. We merely state that there are literally thousands of Protestant denominations and for that there is no counter argument. Every small independent “Bible only” Church has its unique character when it comes to teachings and doctrines. And yes there are literally thousands of these

My argument is not with Barrett. His methodology merely breaks down prot. dems. the same way he breaks down the rcc. RC apologists only reported half the story, which is essentially lying.

Okay, a lot of Catholics did vote for Kerry as did a lot of non-Catholic Christians. And yes the percentage of Catholics that voted for Kerry was greater than that of Evangelicals. While I am not happy about that, it really proves nothing

. Quite the contrary my friend. If rc’s were taught to read the bible for themselves instead of relying upon the Jesus wafer for spiritual growth, we would see a great difference in the way the whole northeast votes. I am proof of this. I was never taught to read the bible, or my family, or my community. Whose fault is that ? Not ours! Will you say it’s different now? You will be caught by your own words.

So you’re not surprised that many Catholics voted for Kerry and you think this is indicative of something. You apparently think that it’s okay to make judgments about the Church

Yes, because I know what it has not done for me. What better judge can there be?

Just remember that Al Gore and Bill Clinton were once pro-life, but they sold their souls for political gain when they turned pro-abortion just prior to running for the highest political offices in the country. So…would it be fair for me to say that these “born again” non-Catholic Christians did exactly what we would expect them to do simply because they believe as you do? No it would not, and many of my Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends are upset with these men while unfortunately some others I know take the same position as Clinton and Gore. Try thinking things out once in awhile. You might learn something

I don’t know anything about their spiritual history, nor do I care, they are not the head of the church, Jesus alone is.

You make absurd attacks on the Church and although you claim to have been Catholic for twenty years, you obviously know very little of the Church and her teachings. This was pointed out to you numerous times on another thread, but you still claim to be an expert. It’s pathetic and shameful that you persist in this fashion. Make whatever points you wish from scripture or logic, but please spare us the bigoted remarks and your inflated claims about knowing the Catholic Church.

I’m not an expert on anything except Christ and him crucified. I shall boast in the Lord and the free eternal life he has given to me!

Bless you Pax,Your friend Dan

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1

Ozzie:

A very disputed interpretation. Even Augustine changed his mind and taught that the reference to building His Church was based on Peter’s confession, not Peter Himself.This is hardly a confirmation of his leadership. Certainly his Apostleship, but not “leadership.” You’d have to read that into Christ’s words, you couldn’t deduce that from those works. You think stats like this “prove” Peter’s leadership? Can you get more subjective than this? Please!!!

It’s not “interpretation.” It’s an objective statement of historical fact. You continue to believe that the NT is a textbook in Christianity, and expect it to contain explicit instructions for every detail. You start with a false premise and you come to a false conclusion.

The Catholic Church is not built on the teaching of St. Augustine. Though he is a Doctor of the Church, his word is not gospel. Some of his teachings were rejected.

The evidence for the leadership of Peter is well documented in Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess, and in Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray. Butler and Ray are both converts to the Catholic Church. Ray’s website is www.catholic-convert.com. Check it out.

This passage does teach that the Church is the “new Israel.”

I rest my case. (color added to your comment)

JMJ Jay

continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

Oz wrote:

Councils only ratified what was already understood by the churches. In fact, Peter himself even understood that Paul’s letter were Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

We don’t know which of Paul’s letters Peter had in mind – he doesn’t list them. 3 of Paul’s letters were lost in antiquity. They would have been included in the NT writings if they had survived. Peter may have referred to those letters also, in which case your Bible lacks all of the “inspired” writings. Since the Catholic Church is not dependent upon the NT for its doctrines, the missing letters are not a problem for Catholics.

. . .Constantine employed Eusebius to put together 50 Bibles for the churches in Constantinople. His N.T. consisted of exactly the same Books that make up our N.T. today.

There are no surviving copies of Eusebius’s Bible and we do not know its contents. But it’s extremely unlikely that it would have the same table of contents as our own. At the time Eusebius lived, the canon of the Bible was still unsettled. His book, History of the Church, written 314-324, lists 1 Clement among the “Recognized” writings, and Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as “Disputed.” There was a long list of “Rejected” writings.

The first list of writings we know now as the NT was drawn by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, at Easter in 367. The first Council of the Catholic Church to name the 46 writings she had inherited from Jesus and the Apostles as the Old Testament and to name 27 of its own writings as the New Testament was the Council of Rome (A.D. 382). The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) also named the same canon. Carthage (in Africa) sent its decrees to Rome for ratification, which is why Carthage is considered the defining council. Pope Innocent I affirmed that these were the scriptures of the Church in a letter in 405 A.D.

The Council of Carthage which convened later merely ratified what was already the general concensus of all the churches of the Empire.

Not quite. Writings in addition to those canonized by the Church were accepted by some local churches into the 5th century. Instant communication was not available in those days. I’ve mentioned 1 Clement. Codex Sinaiticus, one of our oldest and most important surviving biblical manuscripts that dates from the mid-fourth century, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas; they were considered “scripture” by the manuscript writer and his community.

The N.T. Scriptures did not become the Word of God by being declared that are by men, they were the written Word of God the very moment they were penned. It wouldn’t have mattered if no man recognized them as so. That wouldn’t change their divine origin.

That’s obvious, my dear Watson. But what good is a writing that is the “Word of God” if nobody knows it? You wouldn’t trip over Philemon in the park and say, “Oh, here’s the Word of God!” You’d never know it if the Church hadn’t included it in her table of contents of Scripture. Philemon is a very unlikely candidate – it’s a brief letter to a slave owner urging that the owner, Philemon, accept the returning slave (who had been working for Paul) as a brother, but not that he be freed! The NT accepts slavery as a given.

This shows the development of the canon:

ntcanon.org/

The Bible didn’t fall out of heaven. It was written over a period of about 1,100 years. The NT was written by the organic, living, teaching Catholic Church, who formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

exrc wrote:

My argument is not with Barrett. His methodology merely breaks down prot. dems. the same way he breaks down the rcc. RC apologists only reported half the story, which is essentially lying.

Your source(s), please?

JMJ Jay

 

[Ozzie]

To: PAX & KATHOLIKOS (and all)

“Katholikos Jay” states in a previous post (#505) that all must in order to be saved (1) accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior" (which he clairifies as taking “Mass”), (2) keep the Commandments, and (3) “persevere to the end.” To prove his soteriological theory, which he swears is Rome’s soteriology (who am I to argue), he quotes Jesus, 'If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17), " and “…but whoever endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22).

But if we take a close look at Matt. 19:17 we see that it is said in the context of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. So what “Katholikos Jay” is actually stating is that in order to be saved one must (1) “accept” Jesus as Lord and Savior through the sacrament of “Mass.” Limiting this act of acceptance only to Roman and other “Catholics” who participate in a “Mass” recognized as legitimate by the Roman hierarchy; (2) that those who do participate in a recognized “Mass” must keep all of the commandments of the Decalogue Jesus lists in Matt. 19:19-20. PLUS, and this is a BIG PLUS, based on the context, one must sell ALL his possessions and give them to the poor (see Matt. 19:21). And last but not least (3) “persevere to the end.”

So lets recap, in order to get saved, be saved, and remain saved, one must participate in a legitimately recognized “Mass,” keep all the specified commands Jesus lists, and sell all his possessions to the poor. Now I ask both of you, have you done all these things? And do you continue to do them to this very day? For you must endure doing thee things even to the end.

But now let’s examine, contexually, Matt. 10:22 and its parallel passage Matt. 24:13, where Jesus states that the one who “endures to the end will be saved.” In both passages Jesus is speaking, in context, of the “end of the age,” (please read Matt. 10:23 & Matt. 24:3). And in both passages He is speaking to Jews. In Matt. 10:23, because of persecution for preaching* “the Kingom is at hand” *(Matt. 10:7), they must flee from one city IN ISREAL to the next, “UNTIL THE SON OF MAN COMES.” Matt. 24 states the same and describes it during a great Tribulation period ending with the second Advent of Christ to this earth (Matt. 24:21, 29-31).

So not only must you do ALL the other things mentioned in order to get saved, remain saved and assure your salvation, but you must also “endure to the end” of the age IN ISRAEL, or you will not be saved. So even if you do all those things, but die before Christ returns, based on your out-of-context soteriology, you’re doomed anyway!!

You see what happens when you take Scripture OUT OF CONTEXT, Pax and Katholikos? “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9) As I said before, Pax, all Scripture is written FOR you, but not all Scripture is written ABOUT you. One must handle accurately the Word of God.

Bottom line, you confound the Word of God, circumvent the cross and present a totally works “gospel.”

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

I have not only studied the actual Biblical covenants but I have taught studies on them as well. There are actually eight literal Biblical covenants, two of them are conditional and six are unconditional. One must be familiar with these covenants in order to properly understand the Scriptures. Your lack of understanding of these Biblical covenants, Pax, is why you pull and quote verses out of context. If you would like I could send you a private message listing and explaining these covenants. What think ye?

Ozzie,

I do not generally pull verses out of context. If I have done so and if it is “demonstrated” that I have done so, than so be it. In those cases, I’m more than willing to take it on the chin. Your claims in this regard have not been substantiated on this thread. When you’ve attempted to refute the scriptural texts presented, you have done so by making up a “non-existent context” to suit your doctrinal predispositions.

As far as your offer is concerned I’m willing to take you up on it with two conditions. We exchange email files. You take my file of verses refuting OSAS and I’ll take your file on Covenants. Secondly, we both agree to honestly read and study what each has to offer. If that works for you then it’s a go!

 

[oat_soda]

Bottom line, you confound the Word of God, circumvent the cross and present a totally works “gospel.”

i would say that you do this. Isn’t believing a work? Doesn’t it require something for us do to be saved? According to your logic, anything that is done to merit heaven is a work. By saying and believing that “Jesus is our personal Lord and Savior” is the trick to get into heaven; you implicitly acknowledge that our salvation is based on works because unless you did this action or thought, you are doomed.

For your logic to be consistent, you would have to say that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit heaven, including saying and believing that we accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. We are saved regardless of what we do, say, or believe. In which case, why did God reveal himself fully through his Word? THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR LOGIC. You are the one who arbitrarily decides what works are and what are not.

The bottom line is Protestantism contradicts itself and I can’t believe how many people are duped into it.

 

[Pax]

exrc,

So by your thinking, criticizing the Catholic Church and devout Catholics because marginal Catholics voted for Kerry is meaningful and okay. But scrutinizing non-Catholic Christians that have done the same thing isn’t indicative of anything and doesn’t matter at all. You have just transformed “illogical thought into a new art form.” You are blinded by bigotry.

You claim to know all of this because of what the Catholic Church “did not do for you.” This may indeed be the summit of blind pride. Your own descriptions of your youth as a Catholic written on another thread showed that as a child you were not God centered. The part that you don’t get is that when we are “self centered” we are not God centered, and in that state it doesn’t matter what Church we belong to. In your bitter and hateful musings toward the Church it is pretty clear that you are still in a state of rebellion. If you were not, you would submit yourself to the Lord and not improperly criticize Catholics by making uninformed and inflammatory statements such as this, "Quite the contrary my friend. If rc’s were taught to read the bible for themselves instead of relying upon the Jesus wafer for spiritual growth, we would see a great difference in the way the whole northeast votes."

I was a young boy in the fifties on the left coast and we had a beautiful family bible which my aged mother still has to this day. When I was about seven years old and able to read, I asked my mother if I could try reading the bible (it was an expensive bible so I got permission), and she gave me the green light. In the front of that Douay Rheims Bible there is an official encouragement by the Vatican to read scripture. Your personal experience does not square at all with mine. Does that mean that your personal experience defines everything? Try something different. Try not blaming the Church and everybody else for the spiritual woes of your youth. Be thankful that your parents, however poorly they may have raised you as a Catholic, still gave you a religious foundation and belief in God. If it weren’t for the grace of God you could have been raised as an atheist and remained that way the rest of your life.

cont. on next post