I could use some help/prayers

[SteveGC]

… you have bought into something other than the clear teaching of Scripture

. Books don’t teach people. PEOPLE teach people. How do I know this is true even for you? Because I feel confident that you are not an “assured-of-your-Elect-status, bible-only Calvinist” based on your solitary reading of Scripture. We’ve said this 100 times to you, and you never address it. The very doctrine you profess, you did not follow yourself. Face it, you and all other Calvinsits like you, place your trust in humans just as much as we ALL do.

 

[SteveGC]

Steve; who are you kidding, there is a whole body of Catholics that reject Vatican II; as an example.

No kidding. No division.

Just because some of the members reject teachings, has no bearing on the consistency of teaching on faith and morals.

This is what you all fail to understand. Division is not about what you ACCEPT.

It’s about WHAT IS TAUGHT

 

[DeRonde]

I’ve yet to find an OSAS person admit that by sinning (disobeying God’s commandments), that they can lose their OSAS status. How can the “truth” be in them if they disobey God’s 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.”

What happens to all liars?

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.”

This damnation includes all OSAS Christians who prove to be liars because they did not obey God’s commandments.

Pax,
SHW

**Unfortunately for you; you prove you do not understand what the Scripture teaches, by that standard no one will enter the Kingdom of God. This is true in the Spirit of the law; not the letter. If it were the letter; then on one would be in the Kingdom because then you would have to be a legalist and work your way there; such as you seem to be.

John went on to talk about Christ’s work through the believer’s union with Him: “No one who abides in Him sins” (1 John 1:6). That cannot mean true Christians never sin because John just said, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1:8). Rather, the next two verses in chapter 3 explain, “The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil” (verses 7-8). John’s first epistle is consistent in warning against a pattern of sin. This is speaking about the direction, not the perfection of one’s life.

Furthermore; to understand the full context of the passage you quoted; you must go to verse 6 “the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” Not to the letter; we would all be doomed; it is the spirit of the law/command…the pattern or direction.**

 

[SteveGC]

**Unfortunately for you; you prove you do not understand what the Scripture teaches, by that standard no one will enter the Kingdom of God. This is true in the Spirit of the law; not the letter. If it were the letter; then on one would be in the Kingdom because then you would have to be a legalist and work your way there; such as you seem to be.

John went on to talk about Christ’s work through the believer’s union with Him: “No one who abides in Him sins” (1 John 1:6). That cannot mean true Christians never sin because John just said, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1:8). Rather, the next two verses in chapter 3 explain, “The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil” (verses 7-8). John’s first epistle is consistent in warning against a pattern of sin. This is speaking about the direction, not the perfection of one’s life.

Furthermore; to understand the full context of the passage you quoted; you must go to verse 6 “the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” Not to the letter; we would all be doomed; it is the spirit of the law/command…the pattern or direction.**

The post you replied to here is not in reference to being “sinless”. It is refering to the need for genuine, contrite repentence for salvation, which so many OSAS proponents deny. No Catholic believes we are required to be sinless in this life…we are called to be repentent of the sin in our lives.

 

[DeRonde]

. Books don’t teach people. PEOPLE teach people. How do I know this is true even for you? Because I feel confident that you are not an “assured-of-your-Elect-status, bible-only Calvinist” based on your solitary reading of Scripture. We’ve said this 100 times to you, and you never address it. The very doctrine you profess, you did not follow yourself. Face it, you and all other Calvinsits like you, place your trust in humans just as much as we ALL do.

**
That is something that make the Bible a supernatural book because it is the Living word of God;

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Looks to me that my Bible teaches; perhaps you are not using the “supernatural” version. The Holy Spirit is the evident truth teacher for all true believers. You have no way of knowing if you do not have the same.

I guess you guys believe no one has ever just picked up a Bible and started to read and understood the basics? You don’t think God would allows such a thing?**

 

[SHW]

I guess the reason it took 1500 years for the “Church” to finalize the Catholic bible, was an effort to propagate the role of purgatory, indulgence and praying to the dead in rebellion towards the reformers…kind a fishy. Especially since the writer of 2 Maccabees explicitly states the writing is NOT inspired; isn’t that one of the tests of deciding a cannon? Yes. Other books your Church included had geographical and historic errors; another indication that some of the additions were not inspired. It begs the question as to why? The answer to that question should be obvious, but I doubt you can actually see it for exactly for what it is.

You are mistaken in that the Canon of Scripture was not decided before the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. Everyone assumed that the Canons were completed by the year 419 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. It was not until the Reformation that the Church had to step in and formally re-state the earlier OT and NT Canons in an official manner in response to the Reformation’s removal of books from the Catholic Canon.

Please show me where in 2 Maccabees, that it is stated that it is not inspired? Just curious. Not that it matters as far as faith is concerned. Parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical accounts also. This does not make them unworthy to be included in the Canon.

Also, Hanukkah is only mentioned in this one book of the OT (2 Maccabees), no others. Yet, Jesus celebrated this feast (John 10:22). The Feast of Dedication is the Festival of Lights and it is also called Hanukkah.

For all those who mandate Scripture Alone as their sole rule of faith, why would Jesus be celebrating something that is not listed anywhere else in the Bible except 2 Maccabees?

There are scientific errors in Genesis also but that does not make it uninspired and errant.

Scientifically, the sun never actually goes down. It does not ever shut off its light. So, using your reasoning, Genesis should not be included in the Canon.

Genesis 15:17 “And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[DeRonde]

The post you replied to here is not in reference to being “sinless”. It is refering to the need for genuine, contrite repentence for salvation, which so many OSAS proponents deny. No Catholic believes we are required to be sinless in this life…we are called to be repentent of the sin in our lives.

If a heart is not ripe for repentance; Jesus won’t save him in the first place. Is your heart ripe?

 

[SteveGC]

**
That is something that make the Bible a supernatural book because it is the Living word of God;

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Looks to me that my Bible teaches; perhaps you are not using the “supernatural” version. The Holy Spirit is the evident truth teacher for all true believers. You have no way of knowing if you do not have the same.

I guess you guys believe no one has ever just picked up a Bible and started to read and understood the basics? You don’t think God would allows such a thing?**

Let’s be clear. The book is not supernatural. The teachings contained within it are. Those teachings are from God and humans inspired by God. The Holy Spirit is with the humans, not the text on paper. My Church is supernatural. Her teachings are preserved and protected supernaturally. These are preserved and protected within both Sacred Tradition, and yes, the inspired text within Sacred Scripture.

Define “the basics”, and then I’ll answer that question.

 

[SHW]

**
That is something that make the Bible a supernatural book because it is the Living word of God;

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Looks to me that my Bible teaches; perhaps you are not using the “supernatural” version. The Holy Spirit is the evident truth teacher for all true believers. You have no way of knowing if you do not have the same.

I guess you guys believe no one has ever just picked up a Bible and started to read and understood the basics? You don’t think God would allows such a thing?**

2 Peter 3:15-17 “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;”

2 Peter 1:20 “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”

Pax,
SHW

 

[SteveGC]

If a heart is not ripe for repentance; Jesus won’t save him in the first place. Is your heart ripe?

Quit sounding like a Catholic already. Of course the heart must be ripe. It must confess Christ, and follow His teachings. And it must be, as I said, genuinely and contritely repentent, when it stumbles. This is Catholic teaching.

My heart’s all good, friend. Not that I need you to know that.

 

[Junebug999]

The very danger of OSAS is that it lets beievers in Christ commit mortal sin and believe they are already forgiven. I have come to the opinion it’s on of Satan’s biggest tricks since the 1500’s to lead people to hell thinking they are OSAS. So sad, Only by the grace of God is a person’s will turned to the fullness of truth and turned away from OSAS and the other heresies that go along with it, SF, SC, etc.

I just pray my family will all return to the Church before it’s too late, but it’s very hard for protestants who have been involved in protestant ministry to turn away and say they had been wrong about OSAS, SF, SC, etc.

We just need to pray more for them.

 

[Alindawyl]

I guess the reason it took 1500 years for the “Church” to finalize the Catholic bible, was an effort to propagate the role of purgatory, indulgence and praying to the dead in rebellion towards the reformers…kind a fishy. Especially since the writer of 2 Maccabees explicitly states the writing is NOT inspired; isn’t that one of the tests of deciding a cannon? Yes. Other books your Church included had geographical and historic errors; another indication that some of the additions were not inspired. It begs the question as to why? The answer to that question should be obvious, but I doubt you can actually see it for exactly for what it is.

You claim that our own posts show how much we misunderstand Scripture, yet here you are basing criticism of the Church on misunderstandings. Your unnamed teaching authority has been remiss in passing on factual information about the Church.

It might be helpful to read some of what those in the first few centuries of the Church had to say about the Old Testament canon.

Or information about purgatory

Or what indulgences really are.

Or praying to saints.

If you’re going to be critical of the Church’s practices and teachings, it would be a good idea to criticize what the Church actually practices and teaches instead of whatever you THINK those practices and teachings may be. And these links only contain brief overviews. Entire books have been written on each of these subjects, and I encourage you to read as much as you can about the history of Christianity before the Reformation. Especially the writings of those who were around during the early centuries of the Church.

 

[DeRonde]

You are mistaken in that the Canon of Scripture was not decided before the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. Everyone assumed that the Canons were completed by the year 419 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. It was not until the Reformation that the Church had to step in and formally re-state the earlier OT and NT Canons in an official manner in response to the Reformation’s removal of books from the Catholic Canon.

Please show me where in 2 Maccabees, that it is stated that it is not inspired? Just curious. Not that it matters as far as faith is concerned. Parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical accounts also. This does not make them unworthy to be included in the Canon.

Also, Hanukkah is only mentioned in this one book of the OT (2 Maccabees), no others. Yet, Jesus celebrated this feast (John 10:22). The Feast of Dedication is the Festival of Lights and it is also called Hanukkah.

For all those who mandate Scripture Alone as their sole rule of faith, why would Jesus be celebrating something that is not listed anywhere else in the Bible except 2 Maccabees?

There are scientific errors in Genesis also but that does not make it uninspired and errant.

Scientifically, the sun never actually goes down. It does not ever shut off its light. So, using your reasoning, Genesis should not be included in the Canon.

Genesis 15:17 “And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.”

Pax,
SHW

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. 

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. 

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus​

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

Click this link; it is just for Catholics.
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

 

[DeRonde]

You claim that our own posts show how much we misunderstand Scripture, yet here you are basing criticism of the Church on misunderstandings. Your unnamed teaching authority has been remiss in passing on factual information about the Church.

It might be helpful to read some of what those in the first few centuries of the Church had to say about the Old Testament canon.

Or information about purgatory

Or what indulgences really are.

Or praying to saints.

If you’re going to be critical of the Church’s practices and teachings, it would be a good idea to criticize what the Church actually practices and teaches instead of whatever you THINK those practices and teachings may be. And these links only contain brief overviews. Entire books have been written on each of these subjects, and I encourage you to read as much as you can about the history of Christianity before the Reformation. Especially the writings of those who were around during the early centuries of the Church.

**
It would be a complete waste of time reading books about a subjects I know are unbiblical. The Church put itself in a bind by lashing out at the reformers (ie Council of Trent" and canonization of the apocrypha ) Now it is stuck teaching with books they know are not inspired; have put on par with Scripture, but are forced to teach otherwise so as not to lose credibility within the Church.**

 

[DeRonde]

The very danger of OSAS is that it lets beievers in Christ commit mortal sin and believe they are already forgiven. I have come to the opinion it’s on of Satan’s biggest tricks since the 1500’s to lead people to hell thinking they are OSAS. So sad, Only by the grace of God is a person’s will turned to the fullness of truth and turned away from OSAS and the other heresies that go along with it, SF, SC, etc.

I just pray my family will all return to the Church before it’s too late, but it’s very hard for protestants who have been involved in protestant ministry to turn away and say they had been wrong about OSAS, SF, SC, etc.

We just need to pray more for them.

The problem is that it is easily shown that the Apostles and Jesus himself taught that a true believer is utterly saved; never to be plucked from the Father or the Son; it can’t be done. If it were possible, then we would have another gospel like yours or the JW’s or Mormons or Islam, but it is not possibly to thwart God’s will; therefore we have grace through faith in Christ unto salvation; never to be taken away.

 

[SteveGC]

**
It would be a complete waste of time reading books about a subjects I know are unbiblical. The Church put itself in a bind by lashing out at the reformers (ie Council of Trent" and canonization of the apocrypha ) Now it is stuck teaching with books they know are not inspired; have put on par with Scripture, but are forced to teach otherwise so as not to lose credibility within the Church.**

Translation: “I’m not interested in what your Church teaches. ** I’LL** tell you what your Church teaches!! I am, after all, the expert on Catholicism!”

 

[SteveGC]

The problem is that it is easily shown that the Apostles and Jesus himself taught that a true believer is utterly saved; never to be plucked from the Father or the Son; it can’t be done. If it were possible, then we would have another gospel like yours or the JW’s or Mormons or Islam, but it is not possibly to thwart God’s will; therefore we have grace through faith in Christ unto salvation; never to be taken away.

“Plucked” is an action toward someone, taken by another.
*Plucked *says nothing about the very real opportunity, through free will, to Jump from the hand of God.

To say that even we cannot jump, is to say our free will has died. Scripture speaks nothing of this incapacity of ours to freely jump.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Steve; who are you kidding, there is a whole body of Catholics that reject Vatican II; as an example.

Oh really DeRonde? Now that you have butchered the apostolic teaching of scripture with you private interpretative skills so that no apostle would ever recognize his own works you though you’d take a crack at being an expert at other Catholic Ecclesial affairs? You seem to have a fascination for all things Catholics - our bible, our council proceedings etc. Care to list the Catholic documents that were amended?

Can you identify any new dogmas or doctrines that came out of VII that people were rejecting?

Pssst - there were no dogmatic teachings on faith and morals defined in VII to reject. They were discipline changes.

The real upset was when Trent anathemized The ENTIRETY of of The Protestant Reformer’s neo-Christian teachings that Luther invented out of thin air as if he was some long lost Apostle. But none of these who got upset was Catholic after the proclamation became law.

The Catholic Church has no divisions. One agrees with teaching or one leaves or one becomes excommunicated (Formal or automatic) or one is seperated by grave sin. It’s a very simple faith really - OBEDIENCE TO APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY MATTERS.

Comprehende now?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

**
It would be a complete waste of time reading books about a subjects I know are unbiblical. The Church put itself in a bind by lashing out at the reformers (ie Council of Trent" and canonization of the apocrypha ) Now it is stuck teaching with books they know are not inspired; have put on par with Scripture, but are forced to teach otherwise so as not to lose credibility within the Church.**

You don’t get it at all do you DeRonde? The Church is infallable. “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Math 16:18)”. What part of Christ’s promise don’t you understand???

God used the errors of the Reformers to further deepen the Catholic Dogmatic Teaching and to codify scripture. As for the OT containing some scrivener errors and those imperfections implicating their loss of “inspiration” are we also to assume that the early Church losing some of Paul’s letters that he references in NT invalidates all of Paul’s works? Shall we discount scripture that was written by sinful men? How is it that God is unable to make inspiration come forth out of imperfect men that He can’t make truth come out of scripture with a few ink blots in the margins? By the Church declaring the OT cannon it is a matter of de facto standard that it is truth. God would not have permitted it if it were otherwise. Either one believes that God will not permit the gates of hell to prevail or one does not.

Now speaking of spurious works. Shall we discount the entirety of the Protestant Bible because it contains the new words “by faith alone” in the German version Luther perverted? By your same logic why is it that we do not discount ALL of Luther’s words & teaching for his first proven fraud and error? That was Luther’s own standard of judgement. Well, how ironic that The Church took his judgement standard and DID declare all of Luther’s teaching fraudulent since it was blatantly defective.

And why do Protestants insist on putting early Catholic Tradition into the Protestant Bible that does not appear in the original manuscripts? The Catholic traditional Doxology “may the kingdom the power and the glory be yours” was spoken from the pulpit and was never contained in scripture. By DeRonde’s logic Protestants should invalidate Matthew for inserting erroneous manuscript translations or scrivener notes.

*Matthew 6 (KJV)
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
**For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. ***
Doxology not in Oldest Manuscripts:

Original: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord’s_Prayer

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen "
The doxology of the prayer is not contained in Luke’s version, nor is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. The first known use of the doxology, in a less lengthy form (“for yours is the power and the glory forever”),[13] as a conclusion for the Lord’s Prayer (in a version slightly different from that of Matthew) is in the Didache, 8:2. There are at least ten different versions of the doxology in early manuscripts of Matthew before it seems to have standardised. Jewish prayers at the time had doxological endings. The doxology may have been originally appended to the Lord’s Prayer for use during congregational worship. If so, it could be based on 1 Chronicles 29:11. Most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew, and modern translations do not include it, mentioning it only in footnotes. Latin Rite Roman Catholics do not use it when reciting the Lord’s Prayer, but it has been included as an independent item, not as part of the Lord’s Prayer, in the 1970 revision of the Mass. It is attached to the Lord’s Prayer in Eastern Christianity (including Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches) and Protestantism. A minority, generally fundamentalists, posit that the doxology was so important that early manuscripts of Matthew neglected it due to its obviousness,[14] though several other quite obvious things are mentioned in the Gospels.

James

 

[bradwill911]

Ignorant means “not knowing”; it is actually curable. Who said their were 38K divisions within the Catholic Church? I didn’t; perhaps you meant another poster? As I said it means nothing; why? Being a Christian has nothing to do with denomination for Jesus is not a respecter of persons, much less a denomination. So you can boast in your religion and in the end that is what you will have to boast in.

Yes, I know what ignorant means, but thanks for the help. My OP said there were approx 38,000 Christian denominations and you said that it didn’t mean squat because of the divisions in the RCC. So no, you didn’t say that there were 38K divisions in the RCC. I agree that being a Christian has nothing to do with religious denomination. I also don’t believe that the RCC is a denomination. It is Christ’s Church on earth. I don’t boast in that fact, it just is what it is.