Least persuasive argument used by Catholics?

[Belshazzar]

I have no idea why. The Christian Church is the answer. The Roman Church is faith tradition that is apart of the Christian Church that Jesus Christ established here on here.

Many Protestants will say that Catholics are not true Christians. What then? I think that was the point that the previous poster was making.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Many Protestants will say that Catholics are not true Christians. What then? I think that was the point that the previous poster was making.

Yeah, that steams me up as much as Catholics saying Protestants aren’t true Christians. It’ll definitely get me to leave a room and then rant about it later.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Many Protestants will say that Catholics are not true Christians. What then? I think that was the point that the previous poster was making.

Then they are not acting like a Christian. You would probably hear that from a fundamentalist but that is for another thread lol.

 

[pablope]

Being a follower of Jesus Christ. That makes you a Christian.

And being baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

 

[LutheranScholar]

And being baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

Agreed.

 

[aidanbradypop]

And being baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

Well I would hope so if they are a disciple of Christ.

 

[Jon_S_1]

1. 
   

   Well I would hope so if they are a disciple of Christ.

   And then Jesus Sayers to the multitude, “Go therefore and pray the sinners prayer with all nations, and should they soeth desire they may be baptized”
   
   -the Gospel never written

 

[aidanbradypop]

1. 
   
   And then Jesus Sayers to the multitude, “Go therefore and pray the sinners prayer with all nations, and should they soeth desire they may be baptized”
   
   -the Gospel never written

1. 
   Well what you written is a bit odd theology. If that is what the EFCA teaches then I am extremely happy you left.
   
   I find it interesting that converts to Catholicism, especially newer ones, are so anti sinner’s prayer. It is actually biblical. Ever read the first verse in Romans 12? That would be an example of doing a sinner’s prayer. How about after you go confess to a priest? You do a sinner’s prayer then also!
   
   

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well what you written is a bit odd theology. If that is what the EFCA teaches then I am extremely happy you left.

I find it interesting that converts to Catholicism, especially newer ones, are so anti sinner’s prayer. It is actually biblical. Ever read the first verse in Romans 12? That would be an example of doing a sinner’s prayer. How about after you go confess to a priest? You do a sinner’s prayer then also!

I don’t have a problem with the sinners prayer but the bad theology surrounding it that pastors (and myself at one point) say before and after:

Baptism isn’t necessary
You are now saved
Nothing you do can change your salvation
Collect your commemorative get out of hell free card on your way out (literally saw this once)

Jesus called for discipleship, conversion of heart which manifests in real physical things like doing good works, being baptized, confessing sins, prayer, alms giving, etc…

 

[aidanbradypop]

I don’t have a problem with the sinners prayer but the bad theology surrounding it that pastors (and myself at one point) say before and after:

Baptism isn’t necessary
You are now saved
Nothing you do can change your salvation
Collect your commemorative get out of hell free card on your way out (literally saw this once)

Jesus called for discipleship, conversion of heart which manifests in real physical things like doing good works, being baptized, confessing sins, prayer, alms giving, etc…

Jon I have no idea what EFCA say. If what you say is true then I suspect they are of the belief OSAS.

I totally agree with your last statement. Is this a first?

 

[Peter_J]

Many Protestants will say that Catholics are not true Christians.

Come to think of it, there was a period, 6 or 7 years ago, when I and several other posters changed our profiles to read “Religion:Christianity”, and put Catholic (or Orthodox, Lutheran, etc) in the “Location” field.

 

[JonNC]

The question of course being “What is the Biblical Gospel?”

That is the question that divides churches.

That’s the question that caused me to leave Evangelicalism for the “biblical gospel” that was most consistent through history all the way to the very early church. The biblical gospel held by the orthodox and Catholic Churches and I will toss a bone to a close second for conservative Anglicans and Lutherans.

Received and appreciated.

Jon

 

[adrift]

This explanation still is not persuasive to me, though–or fact.

Fact?

Since there were many different groups and beliefs within christianity from the get-go and for those first few centuries, with many early “church fathers” disagreeing with each other on doctrine…

Within Christianity? What you say is part truth. What you do not acknowledge is they all belonged to one Church. They didn’t form different Churches. Your disagreement that it wasn’t fact is not fact.

and since we can’t confirm who wrote those 4 gospels (literary Greek-speaking writers?)…

non sequential

and since they were written so, so many decades after Jesus died…

Debatable. What is “so” many? Thirty years is not a long period of time and it was within the life times of those who were alive when Jesus was.

and since there was a mingling with political power re Constantine…

non sequential

and since so many early gospels were destroyed or banned…

Since you don’t name them, and provide no proof this statement is meaningless. Most of these are not decades later but centuries later. The Gospel of Thomas has a wide dating but was most likely century later as well.

and since Paul never even met Jesus…

4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutes thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutes:

I don’t think we can recognize that the specifics practiced for 1000 years are the ones Jesus meant them to be.
.

Only if you believe that Jesus is a liar.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[commenter]

I think it’s great that someone can be quoted about it - an early Christian Father…but can there be any quoted earlier as in the 1st or 2nd century? That’s the problem I have when I do the studying - I have difficulty finding some of the earliest Church Fathers speaking of some of the doctrines.

Rita

You’re right. Possible reasons:

1. Some writings were lost.
2. Some answers didn’t get written down until someone publicly raised questions about the topic, then a scholar had to clarify and defend what was already in the oral tradition.
3. Some issues just didn’t occur to people at all for awhile. Then as they ponder something in Scripture or ECFs’ they realize this truth implies something else might be true.

But then how do we, now, know this scholar is an “Early Church Father” and that other scholar is a heretic? How do we know this line of thinking, leading towards what is now almost universally accepted Christian Tradition is reliable, while this other ancient line of thinking led to “heresy”? One might argue, as you do, that “the earlier, the more reliable” but how do you really know which doctrine is “older”; and for that matter, how do you know that “the earlier, the more reliable” is valid in itself? We already consider the late Gospel of John to be canonical, but reject other books that are earlier than it.

In other words, there are lots of judgement calls made, past and present, about how to weigh and interpret the ECF’s. Since this thread is about “least persuasive argument used by Catholics” I won’t present my argument here, just adding a few thoughts to your own ideas.

 

[Indigo_Cardinal]

From this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=954104

Folk trying to say that God uses natural disasters to ‘punish’ people (such as earthquakes.)

It just comes across as, “So you’re saying your god is a big bully with such poor aim that he has to send an earthquake that may kill many good and innocent people, rather than just zapping the bad ones?”

Not a convincing argument at all. In fact, very off-putting.

 

[Jon_S_1]

From this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=954104

Folk trying to say that God uses natural disasters to ‘punish’ people (such as earthquakes.)

It just comes across as, “So you’re saying your god is a big bully with such poor aim that he has to send an earthquake that may kill many good and innocent people, rather than just zapping the bad ones?”

Not a convincing argument at all. In fact, very off-putting.

I almost responded over there…but don’t want to get into it…definitely see your frustration on that one. He’s wrong though…

 

[Peter_J]

I’m pretty sure God is never wrong.

 

[commenter]

From this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=954104

Folk trying to say that God uses natural disasters to ‘punish’ people (such as earthquakes.)

It just comes across as, “So you’re saying your god is a big bully with such poor aim that he has to send an earthquake that may kill many good and innocent people, rather than just zapping the bad ones?”

Not a convincing argument at all. In fact, very off-putting.

Thanks for bringing it up. Have you heard any more unpersuasive arguments?

 

[Reuben_J]

From this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=954104

Folk trying to say that God uses natural disasters to ‘punish’ people (such as earthquakes.)

It just comes across as, “So you’re saying your god is a big bully with such poor aim that he has to send an earthquake that may kill many good and innocent people, rather than just zapping the bad ones?”

Not a convincing argument at all. In fact, very off-putting.

And God does not zap the bad ones either. There will be nothing left if he does.

 

[ephesians2]

The question of course being “What is the Biblical Gospel?”

That is the question that divides churches.

That’s the question that caused me to leave Evangelicalism for the “biblical gospel” that was most consistent through history all the way to the very early church. The biblical gospel held by the orthodox and Catholic Churches and I will toss a bone to a close second for conservative Anglicans and Lutherans.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Corinthians 15:1-4

That’s the Biblical Gospel and thank the Lord above that is the gospel my Church preaches. I am continually blessed each Sunday to be able to sit under the preaching of the Word and hear this gospel proclaimed.