I'm calling on everyone here in this forum EXCEPT Catholics !!!

[adstrinity]

ADS: He cherry picks Scripture

RA: Me cherry picking? ROFL. I don’t think so. I’m the only one here reconciling the numerous verses dealing with connected issues.

A person can’t make a doctrine out of one verses that talks about works. That is courting disaster. Multiple verses apply.

I’ve discussed multiple verses – usually needing to mention passages either avoided, or segments of verses conveniently not underlined.

RA

Where does Rich fail? He is attempting to convince himself and others that he doesn’t cherry pick what he wants, when, he took part of what I said and dismissed the rest.

Incidentally,

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.

drbo.org/chapter/61004.htm

But, of course, though this may help some lurkers discern, those who don’t want to see that the Catholic Church acknowledges marriage to be a Sacrament and the first commandment of God and that the Catholic Church goes along with what was said in Matthew and Acts about being able to eat all things as all food is good will ignore this commentary and keep on reapeating louder and more obstinantly their own judgment upon themselves to the pats on the backs of others. It could be pointed out that the Church isn’t even that strict about what one can eat on days of fasting, and health always comes first over fasting, but, only by the Grace of God will somebody humble themselves to acknowledge this.

Mary, Pray for us.

 

[steve_b]

Because the apostles, and those who believe their gospel, understand the sacrifice of Christ to be greater than all their sins.

That didn’t answer the question.

sand:

We who believe their gospel have a Savior Who truly saves us from sin:Acts 10:43**“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins***.”*

That is a summary statement. If that’s all there was to it, with no explanation of what “believes” means, then you could do what you did above, make up a scinerio that suits you, memorize that passage and throw the rest of the bible away.

sand:

(cf Mt 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; 24:47; Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18; Col 1:14).

Let’s take your passages 1 by 1

Mt 26: *28 for this is my blood of the * covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of **
sins.

Here, Jesus is instituting the Eucharist . For context of the absolute importance of the Eucharist look at Jn 6:27-69. Notice that if one does NOT partake in the Eucharist they have NO life in them. Read the passages slowly.

Mk 1:*4 John the baptizer appeared * in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for **
the forgiveness of sins.

And?

Lk 24:7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise."

And?

**Acts 5: **31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

13: 28 Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed.

26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’*

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins

You have an affinity for selecting summary passages. We know who Jesus is and what He did. You left out ALL the particulars that one who believes in Jesus is to DO.

 

[steve_b]

Steve: Sin is not mentioned anywhere in that passage from Romans.

RA: I noticed that out of ALL the things you underlined, indeed out of ALL the things listed, you chose NOT to underline only one thing – i.e, nor anything else in all creation.

Are you serious? I mean, seriously? You didn’t highlight the very thing that answers your own question? I’m not really sure how to even interpret that level of…well…I can’t bring myself to even pick a word.

Not only is *sin *something that is “in creation,” but the actual vehicle through which sin must be activated (i.e. a *human being *- we sin) is also in creation. Consequently, neither we ourselves, nor anything we can do (e.g., sin), can separate is from God’s love. WHY? Because we belong to God.

We are God’s children by adoption. We are his. We are bought by his blood. We are in his hands. The Father gave us to Jesus. And Jesus likewise holds us in his hands, too. We are his. And no one, as the scriptures says, can take us from his hands – including we ourselves.

I can’t believe you actually just didn’t underline that very line that brings into focus what we’re discussing. Amazing. :doh2:

I;m certainly about as non-anti-Catholic as anyone can get, but that was really troubling, IMHO.

RA

I responded to your post to ADS
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4326317&postcount=147

You were using in your post the OSAS argument. Sin DOES seperate us from God even though he loves us, and THAT is the point.

 

[adstrinity]

I responded to your post to ADS
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4326317&postcount=147

You were using in your post the OSAS argument. Sin DOES seperate us from God even though he loves us, and THAT is the point.

Ta muchly!

 

[DelScorcho]

Would you be so kind as to give me your 3 biggest reasons as to why, according to your denomination and faith, the Catholic Church is unequivocably WRONG in it’s teachings and practices.

My reason for asking this is because I will then research each of the reasons you give, and personally satisfy myself as to their validity, or not, for myself, as part of my journey into faith.

I hope this question does not break any forum rules; Im not looking to give a platform for anti catholic rhetoric and respect the fact this is a catholic board. I merely want to try and get into one place, i.e. here, what the main arguements are against Catholicism, and then investigate them for myself. I thought it would be the most expedient way to do this. If Im wrong, I apologise to the admins, and please delete this post as you see fit.

This is really for my own education and exploration, and trying to get the things I want to research into some sort of ordered fashion.

Bruxilda.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but this is the truth for me:

• I don’t believe the RCC interpretation’s of the Bible and I certainly do not believe that God has an “official interpreter”. I feel that these church rules were created by men over thousands of years to suit their personal agendas at the time.
• I specifically do not believe RCC interpretations when it comes to sex. I’ve seen the corresponding Biblical verses and don’t see it.
• I do not believe there is “one official church”.

 

[steve_b]

Ta muchly!

Just as an aside

sin separates us from God," (Eph. 4:18-32) but, again, not separated from His LOVE**! **Since one only has salvation when he has the LIFE of God, Rom. 8:38,39 does NOT assure an unconditional salvation on the basis of God’s infinite love!

To test this one only has to looks at a few passages

“Your Iniquities Have SEPARATED You From Your God” [Is 59:2]

Those who read the word “sin” into the list cited by Paul in Rom. 8:38,39 (like RA) read into the scripture what they want, and contradict the clear and the plain truth of:

Isa. 59:2

and

Jesus who loves unconditionally, but will judge EVERYONE,

34* Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35* forI was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you*, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41* Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46* And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

and

Paul

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God”(1 Cor. 6:9,10).

19* Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, * drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [Gal 5:19-21]

Notice calling Jesus Lord won’t save. and we see that sin definitely seperates one from God. Not His love, but from HIM.

Even as Paul is addressing the Church at Corinth and Galatia. Paul is not warning a bunch of yahoos, he’s warning people in the Church.

 

[steve_b]

Please do not take this the wrong way, but this is the truth for me:

• I don’t believe the RCC interpretation’s of the Bible and I certainly do not believe that God has an “official interpreter”. I feel that these church rules were created by men over thousands of years to suit their personal agendas at the time.
• I specifically do not believe RCC interpretations when it comes to sex. I’ve seen the corresponding Biblical verses and don’t see it.
• I do not believe there is “one official church”.

Where do you think you got the bible?

The scriptures were written

• in the Catholic Church
• for the Catholic Church
• by the Catholic Church
  And you’re not going to trust the very Church that gave us the bible, to interpret it correctly?

 

[DelScorcho]

Where do you think you got the bible?

The scriptures were written

• in the Catholic Church
• for the Catholic Church
• by the Catholic Church
  And you’re not going to trust the very Church that gave us the bible, to interpret it correctly?

I thought God wrote the Bible.

This is interesting reading about that topic:

allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm

And to be honest… no, I don’t trust the Catholic Church.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Steve: The scriptures were written

* in the Catholic Church
* for the Catholic Church
* by the Catholic Church

RA: Wow, that’s kind of, er, blasphemous, actually.

RA

 

[sandusky]

steve b:

That didn’t answer the question.

Perhaps not for you, but it does for me.
steve b:

That is a summary statement. If that’s all there was to it, with no explanation of what “believes” means, then you could do what you did above, make up a scinerio that suits you, memorize that passage and throw the rest of the bible away.

I understand what “belief” means, and all that it entails, and I understand the rest of your statement as your erection of a straw man.
steve b:

You have an affinity for selecting summary passages. We know who Jesus is and what He did. You left out ALL the particulars that one who believes in Jesus is to DO.

I do have a way of understanding the truth, thanks to the HS, and, as I said, I understand what “belief” means, and all that belief entails.

 

[TaliaHudspeth]

I do have a way of understanding the truth, thanks to the HS, and, as I said, I understand what “belief” means, and all that belief entails.

And that’s the problem. I’m speaking as a born and raised Protestant, yet I recognize that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church - by our participation in that community we reap the benefits.

There is NO WAY to reconcile all the divergent Protestant beliefs by the claim we all have the Holy Spirit. Why do some baptize infants and others don’t? etc. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it (and us) in all truth.

 

[adstrinity]

Where do you think you got the bible?

The scriptures were written

• in the Catholic Church
• for the Catholic Church
• by the Catholic Church
  And you’re not going to trust the very Church that gave us the bible, to interpret it correctly?

No kidding! I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I don’t think the Protestants give St. Jerome, Sts Cyril and Methodias, and St. Mesrob enough consideration or credit.

It really takes a lot to take St. Paul out of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, He is still a patron for many.

St. Paul the Apostle, pray for us.

 

[sandusky]

TaliaHudspeth:

And that’s the problem. I’m speaking as a born and raised Protestant, yet I recognize that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church - by our participation in that community we reap the benefits.

What do you mean by “Church” Talia?

If by that you mean that Christ gave the Spirit only to the leadership, I disagree—He gives the Spirit to each member of His Body (cf 1 Jn 2:20, 27).

AFA benefiting from participation in a “church community,” which one? There’s no benefit for a Christian to participate in the community of Mormons, or JWs, or any of those that cannot be described as “orthodox” in their beliefs, and I find some of those who claim to be orthodox of no value either, which is why I’m no longer Catholic.

TaliaHudspeth:

There is NO WAY to reconcile all the divergent Protestant beliefs by the claim we all have the Holy Spirit.

I would agree; therefore, it’s incumbent upon the one who believes to be diligent, and to know God’s word well enough to discern which teachers have the Spirit, and which don’t (2 Tim 2:15).

TaliaHudspeth:

Why do some baptize infants and others don’t? etc. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it (and us) in all truth.

Some see baptism as covenantal, and so, baptize infants for that reason. I’ve reached my conclusion that “believer’s baptism” is the example of the apostles in Acts.

 

[TaliaHudspeth]

What do you mean by “Church” Talia?

If by that you mean that Christ gave the Spirit only to the leadership, I disagree—He gives the Spirit to each member of His Body (cf 1 Jn 2:20, 27).

AFA benefiting from participation in a “church community,” which one? There’s no benefit for a Christian to participate in the community of Mormons, or JWs, or any of those that cannot be described as “orthodox” in their beliefs, and I find some of those who claim to be orthodox of no value either, which is why I’m no longer Catholic.

.

I’ve always defined “the Church” as the body of believers in Christ.

Now I’ve discovered the Vincensian Canon, and its is giving me quite a lot to think about. Like it or not, what has been believed “always, everywhere, by all” is an interesting lens through which to research Christianity. I’m not so presumptuous as to believe that 1500 years of Christians, including the Apostles, were dead wrong.

I’ll be honest with you - I’m at a cross roads in my faith, but like GK Chesterton, I’ve discovered the romance of orthodoxy.

I understand John’s epistle in context to be a guide for us all - yes, having been exposed to Truth, we should recognize when its being perverted, but the words of Jesus weigh more in my estimation, and John’s epistle is not a refutation of that.

Basically, the problem boils down to the fact that if you let every person discern “the truth” then you’ve lost it. As I’ve recently discovered, Truth is Truth, whether I like it or buy into it, and regardless of the interpretation I think I can give it. Speaking from my own Protestant background, I love Jesus, but I’ve got a major obedience problem. I hear something I don’t like in church? Not a problem, I’ll move down the street. BIG problem…

I’m on a journey, and I don’t have all the answers, but this is where I am now.

Blessings in Christ,

 

[steve_b]

I thought God wrote the Bible.

He inspired the writers. God didn’t ***write ***scripture.

del:

This is interesting reading about that topic:

allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm

Allow me to quote from your exibit (emphasis mine)

:
Who Wrote the Bible - Evidence of Divine Inspiration
“Who wrote the Bible” is a question that can be definitively answered by examining the biblical texts in light of the external evidences that supports its claims. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.

God does not leave us with just claims of His divine handiwork in the Bible, but also supports it with compelling evidence. The design of the Bible itself is a miracle. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ.

The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed). An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Further, archeology confirms (or in some cases supports) accounts in the biblical record. No other holy book comes close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its divine authorship.
Who Wrote the Bible - A Question of Eternal Significance
“Who Wrote the Bible” is indeed a question that everyone must ask. If indeed it is the Word of the living God, then no other book gives us more insight into our lives, more hope for our future, and a true path to a relationship with God. Search the Bible with openness and honesty and see for yourself what the Creator of the universe wants to tell you! "

Even your own source says God inspired, but men wrote it

Del:

And to be honest… no, I don’t trust the Catholic Church.

By accepting the scriptures, you absolutely DO trust the Catholic Church even though you don’t admit it.

Here’s something for you to read
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html

 

[DelScorcho]

He inspired the writers. God didn’t ***write ***scripture.

Allow me to quote from your exibit (emphasis mine)

Even your own source says God inspired, but men wrote it

By accepting the scriptures, you absolutely DO trust the Catholic Church even though you don’t admit it.

Here’s something for you to read
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html

True it does say “men wrote it”… not Catholics wrote it.

Show me one place where the Bible says that masturbation or my vasectomy are mortal sins.

 

[sandusky]

TaliaHudspeth:

Now I’ve discovered the Vincensian Canon, and its is giving me quite a lot to think about. Like it or not, what has been believed “always, everywhere, by all” is an interesting lens through which to research Christianity.

”Always, everywhere, by all.”

I think that falls into what’s been “taught” by some, rather than what’s been believed by all, and in history, we do see the brutal enforcement of teaching as belief, and so, did “all, always and everywhere” truly believe what was taught?

TaliaHudspeth:

I’m not so presumptuous as to believe that 1500 years of Christians, including the Apostles, were dead wrong.

Neither am I; however, I do think that one must rely on anachronism to posit that CC of today, is the Church of the apostles.

TaliaHudspeth:

I understand John’s epistle in context to be a guide for us all - yes, having been exposed to Truth, we should recognize when its being perverted, but the words of Jesus weigh more in my estimation, and John’s epistle is not a refutation of that.

To which words of Jesus are you referring?

TaliaHudspeth:

Basically, the problem boils down to the fact that if you let every person discern “the truth” then you’ve lost it.

Well, Talia, people can certainly teach and believe what they want, right or wrong, and those with right understanding are obligated to sound the alarm against wrong teaching from the pulpit, and in their writings.

TaliaHudspeth:

Speaking from my own Protestant background, I love Jesus, but I’ve got a major obedience problem. I hear something I don’t like in church? Not a problem, I’ll move down the street. BIG problem…

I can assure you, Talia, as you already know, that simply moving from church to church is not the solution to your disobedience. Not to sound cavalier, but you must quit running from the battle, and meet it head-on.

What makes you think a move to the CC would be any different concerning that?

 

[steve_b]

True it does say “men wrote it”… not Catholics wrote it.

There wasn’t any other Church but the Catholic Church from the 1st century a.d. forward.

del:

Show me one place where the Bible says that masturbation or my vasectomy are mortal sins.

AHHHHH now we’re getting to the REAL crux of the matter.

I’ll get back to later. I have to go to an appointment

 

[DelScorcho]

There wasn’t any other Church but the Catholic Church from the 1st century a.d. forward.

AHHHHH now we’re getting to the REAL crux of the matter.

I’ll get back to later. I have to go to an appointment

Just two examples of church rules that I don’t believe in…

As for the history of the Bible, I have a site that may be more neutral than a book written in 1911 by a Catholic priest (his introduction title: “That we need some other rule besides the Word of God.” says it all for me).

allaboutthejourney.org/history-of-the-bible.htm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**Steve: **Notice calling Jesus Lord won’t save. . . .

RA: I never said it did. Classic, absolutely Classic perversion of salvation by grace alone through faith alone doctrine. Now, I know why we have wars. Sigh. There will never be peace.

RA