Non-Catholics, a question

[Tomster]

Right on Janet. I told you there were some here who don’t have a clue to what they are saying. Jn 3:16 says it all and it is plain to read. They try to add something that is not there.

We are not trying to add something that is not there. We are telling you that you have taken John 3:16 out of context.

If you will?

You are correct in stating that John 3:16 refers to belief, what you fail to understand is that this aspect of justification is followed by John 3:21 with the words, “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” Here Jesus does not emphasize those who believe but " whoever lives by the truth." In fact, Jesus implies that they come to light of faith precisely because thay have been living in the truth. Jesus is not divorcing faith from works. He is intimately identifying one with the other. Moreover, these are not boastful, self-righteous works done under the system of obligation, but works that have “been done through God.” Again, we see the unfortunate tendency of Protestants to interpret Scripture’s use of “faith” to be “faith alone,” yet Scripture never uses such terminology; rather, it invariably couples faith with works in the realm of grace for the purposes of justification.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by freedomwriter
Right on Janet. I told you there were some here who don’t have a clue to what they are saying. Jn 3:16 says it all and it is plain to read. They try to add something that is not there.

OK not there?
***John 3:5: "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ***

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

I guess we Catholics simply don’t understand what THEE BIBLE actually say’s AND MEANS? Hmmmmmm:blush:

Love and prayers,

 

[Sellers1]

In reading another thread, I see that some non-Catholics who post here are annoyed at the vigor with which Catholics defend the faith.

I’m wondering, were you surprised (when you first came here) that Catholics defend the faith? Were you surprised that Catholics aren’t really that open to the evangelical efforts of those outside the CC? Did you expect Catholics to be more willing to compromise on doctrine?

Oh not at all, I knew that through all of the time that I was Catholic. I am just really taken back at how they are so arrogant and smug about what they cannot support and prove as true in their faith. Fervant defending is a real sign of someone whose side isn’t supported by truth.

 

[freedomwriter]

We are not trying to add something that is not there. We are telling you that you have taken John 3:16 out of context.

If you will?

You are correct in stating that John 3:16 refers to belief, what you fail to understand is that this aspect of justification is followed by John 3:21 with the words, “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” Here Jesus does not emphasize those who believe but " whoever lives by the truth." In fact, Jesus implies that they come to light of faith precisely because thay have been living in the truth. Jesus is not divorcing faith from works. He is intimately identifying one with the other. Moreover, these are not boastful, self-righteous works done under the system of obligation, but works that have “been done through God.” Again, we see the unfortunate tendency of Protestants to interpret Scripture’s use of “faith” to be “faith alone,” yet Scripture never uses such terminology; rather, it invariably couples faith with works in the realm of grace for the purposes of justification.

Thanks Tommy you send me a private message to inforce what i have been saying all along. Along with Eph 2:8-9 Here you say the beginning of this process is FAITH followed by what Works. Thanks again are you sure you are not protestant. lol

 

[freedomwriter]

That’s called faith… Works not mentioned here… Works are not for salvation, but a result of our faith.

That is called faith too… Works not mentioned here either… Works are not for salvation, but a result of our faith. They are the good fruits of the good tree…

In Matthew 19:16-17, Jesus was speaking to a Lawyer who was self-righteous since he wanted to put Jesus to the test (Luke 10:25). He asked what he must do in order to obtain eternal life and Jesus responded with the requirements of keeping the commandments. If a person keeps all of the commandments, it would seem that they could obtain eternal life. However, nobody can keep all of the commandments. Therefore, Jesus’ comments to this man show this man that justification can only be by faith since no one can keep all of the commandments. This is why it says in Eph. 2:8 that we are saved by grace through faith. Also, Romans 3:20,28 and Galatians 2:16 tells us that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law; that is, by the works that he can do.
There is no contradiction at all when we examine the contexts. We are justified by faith but that faith must be alive (James 2). The Law cannot save us because we are incapable of keeping it (Matthew 19:16-17). Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith.

What about reading the verse right before the one you quoted?
“9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.”
It explains itself…

Of course we are to do good… I never doubted that. I just said that we cannot save ourselves with good works. We cannot bribe God into anything. Salvation is a gift and as a gift it is absolutely free. Works are the fruit of our faith.

“15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
If we are saved we bring forth good fruit and if we are not we won’t. Lip-service does not change that.

Hi Janet Tomster sent me a private message for you and i saying that he agrees with us that salvation is by faith alone and that works is a by product of our faith. I think he is becoming a protestant lol

 

[freedomwriter]

OK not there?
***John 3:5: "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ***

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

I guess we Catholics simply don’t understand what THEE BIBLE actually say’s AND MEANS? Hmmmmmm:blush:

Love and prayers,

Thats what i have been saying all along. Read it yourself like the bereans and stop listening to all these council and following all these traditions

 

[kalt]

Oh not at all, I knew that through all of the time that I was Catholic. I am just really taken back at how they are so arrogant and smug about what they cannot support and prove as true in their faith. Fervant defending is a real sign of someone whose side isn’t supported by truth.

Do you have any examples of what can’t be proved? How do you figure that defenidng something with vigor is a sign that it can’t be defended? I can think of many prinicples and views that are often defended with vigor - some are true and some are hogwash. By what evidence do you decide that the vigor with which Catholicism is defended is of the hogwash variety? Or is it really that you disagree with the principles and views, and that the vigor ,or lack of vigor, will be “proof” of what you believe about them?
It seems to me that if Catholics sat back and said little or nothing, it would be seen as a real sign of someone whose side isn’t supported by truth. Aren’t we really, then, in a no-win situation? If we defend the faith vigorously, those who disagree will say that it’s “a sign”. If we sit back and say little, it’s “a sign”. We are left to defend the faith and be called wrong, or sit back and do little, and be called wrong.

 

[Sellers1]

Do you have any examples of what can’t be proved? How do you figure that defenidng something with vigor is a sign that it can’t be defended? I can think of many prinicples and views that are often defended with vigor - some are true and some are hogwash. By what evidence do you decide that the vigor with which Catholicism is defended is of the hogwash variety? Or is it really that you disagree with the principles and views, and that the vigor ,or lack of vigor, will be “proof” of what you believe about them?
It seems to me that if Catholics sat back and said little or nothing, it would be seen as a real sign of someone whose side isn’t supported by truth. Aren’t we really, then, in a no-win situation? If we defend the faith vigorously, those who disagree will say that it’s “a sign”. If we sit back and say little, it’s “a sign”. We are left to defend the faith and be called wrong, or sit back and do little, and be called wrong.

I don’t agree. Jesus did not defend himself whatsoever during his passion and he is God! If Catholicism was truly Christ’s one true Church then it could be validated and easily supported by truth. It in reality is not. The Marian dogmas cannot be proven by Scripture or by anything except the Catholic church declaring it a magisterial teaching and it being discerned by the Spirit. There is no visible proof for several doctrines of the Catholic church. No proof exists except to hear the church say you must trust it and that whatever it declares to be truth is just that.

 

[kalt]

I don’t agree. Jesus did not defend himself whatsoever during his passion and he is God! If Catholicism was truly Christ’s one true Church then it could be validated and easily supported by truth. It in reality is not. The Marian dogmas cannot be proven by Scripture or by anything except the Catholic church declaring it a magisterial teaching and it being discerned by the Spirit. There is no visible proof for several doctrines of the Catholic church. No proof exists except to hear the church say you must trust it and that whatever it declares to be truth is just that.

You must agree, as a Christian, that Christ’s passion is the truth. Look at the world around you. Are all people Christian? Shouldn’t this, by your account, be accepted by the world as truth?

Christ came into the world, and many of the people who saw him in the flesh didn’t accept the truth. Some won’t accept the truth, defended vigorously or not. The truth, though, is what it is.

The claim that defending the truth with vigor is proof that it’s not the truth can’t be supported. If you defend the passion with vigor, is that proof that the passion is untrue?

What do you mean by “visible proof”?

 

[rev_kevin]

Somewhere around post 67 you complained that, "If you say something they won’t accept your view. "

You said that you didn’t accept the fact that the CC teaches truth. In fact, you had a very difficult time trying to figure out what “truth” is. You asked us to show you what this truth is. I find it hard to believe that your claim of training to be a priest when you don’t understand that simple concept–and can’t spell altar.

If you were more truthful, you would earn the respect you’re looking for.

View is different then belief you have your view Ihave mins is that so hard to understand.
If you have to complain aor make fun of spelling you have a problem. My fingers sometimes go were they want too I have parkinsons. Do you even know anything about it. You shake, you have a hard time walking, seeing, eating, getting dressed. You have a hard time with things that you take for granted, and you make fun of a misspelled word.
the first year in school is mainly introduction not indepth training. I disagreed with it so I left. Problem? You keep harping on theis not me I said its fine but you are keeping it alive.

 

[kalt]

View is different then belief you have your view Ihave mins is that so hard to understand.
If you have to complain aor make fun of spelling you have a problem. My fingers sometimes go were they want too I have parkinsons. Do you even know anything about it. You shake, you have a hard time walking, seeing, eating, getting dressed. You have a hard time with things that you take for granted, and you make fun of a misspelled word.
the first year in school is mainly introduction not indepth training. I disagreed with it so I left. Problem? You keep harping on theis not me I said its fine but you are keeping it alive.

Another disabled person complaining to one who has a degenerative neurological condition. Would you like to borrow my hankie? The comment on your spelling wasn’t to “make fun”, but to point out that your claim is highly unlikely to be true. Truth is not a concept of “in depth training” only.

Hey, you complained that your view is not accepted by Catholics on this forum. Now you want to back away from the complaint and say that what you really meant was that your view isn’t acknowledged. It’s clear that your view is acknowledged, since it has sparked this very debate.

BTW, the first year in a seminary is not an introduction to the faith. A bachelor’s degree is required, and the candidate is expected to have a strong background in the faith. A seminary isn’t a place to decide if you agree with Catholic theology, for Pete’s sake.

 

[rev_kevin]

Another disabled person complaining to one who has a degenerative neurological condition. Would you like to borrow my hankie? The comment on your spelling wasn’t to “make fun”, but to point out that your claim is highly unlikely to be true. Truth is not a concept of “in depth training” only.

Hey, you complained that your view is not accepted by Catholics on this forum. Now you want to back away from the complaint and say that what you really meant was that your view isn’t acknowledged. It’s clear that your view is acknowledged, since it has sparked this very debate.

BTW, the first year in a seminary is not an introduction to the faith. A bachelor’s degree is required, and the candidate is expected to have a strong background in the faith. A seminary isn’t a place to decide if you agree with Catholic theology, for Pete’s sake.

Back in the late 60’s-70s it wasnt, you were able to go in right after high school. And I beleive i asid that i didnt agree with them. But I see what kond of person you are when you haave to make fun of the disabled. do some resurch on the disorder. i hape you feel like a real man for you comments about the disabled, you are sick. If this is how you, a Catholic, treats the disables you dont know th e truth because a true christian or someone who claims to know the truth would not say that to someone with a disablility.
You make your catholic religion loo real good with comments like that. with a comment like that you dont have a proper upbringing i bet your parents would be proud of you for that. I cant saay what i really want to becaues i will not stoop down to yur level. you make me sick with a comment like that.

 

[PJM]

=Sellers1Oh not at all, I knew that through all of the time that I was Catholic. I am just really taken back at how they are so arrogant and smug about what they cannot support and prove as true in their faith. Fervant defending is a real sign of someone whose side isn’t supported by truth.

***Dear friend in Christ,

It seems not to be lack of proof, or lack of evidence, rather a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to accept facts AS FACTS.

We can, and do lead you to THEE truth, but it is God not us who MUST allow you to understand it.

What you deem to be argonance stems from the fact that their can only be a single truth on any, and every issue. On matters of Faith and or Morals, [And only faith and Morals] that single truth resides in the Only Church founded by Christ. [Another one of those seemingly difficult truths to be accepted.] Because we teach and share in Communion with Thee Church, we have the surety of the Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus to insure that what we share is THEE TRUTH. We are sorry to offend, but if you don’t wish to know, perhaps it would be better not to ask *

John 16: “12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. “

Love and prayers friend,

 

[Agabus]

To the OP:

I wasn’t surprised by the vigor with which Catholics can defend the faith — I was well familiar with it, actually.

I was surprised, however, at how little charity I saw between Catholics. Part of what initially attracted me to Catholicism was the supposed unity of faith Catholics share, but seeing a lot of the Catholic-on-Catholic sniping that went on here nearly derailed it for me.

I say that in the past tense because, IMO, the situation has improved somewhat, and I’m not sure if that’s God’s grace, a deliberate effort by the moderators or just my willingness to not see it anymore.

 

[Sellers1]

You must agree, as a Christian, that Christ’s passion is the truth. Look at the world around you. Are all people Christian? Shouldn’t this, by your account, be accepted by the world as truth?

Absolutely and that was my point. It was truth but yet Jesus did not defend it and was silent like a lamb led to slaughter.

I mean visable viable proof!

 

[Sellers1]

***Dear friend in Christ,

It seems not to be lack of proof, or lack of evidence, rather a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to accept facts AS FACTS.

Could you please stop substituting your inability to prove what your claim to be true as my misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of the Catholic church. This Catholic defense mechanism is old and worn out and doesn’t work.

[Another one of those seemingly difficult truths to be accepted.] Because we teach and share in Communion with Thee Church, we have the surety of the Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus to insure that what we share is THEE TRUTH. We are sorry to offend, but if you don’t wish to know, perhaps it would be better not to ask

I might as well because you cannot prove that what you claim to be truth is such.

John 16: “12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. “

Love and prayers friend,

[/QUOTE]

 

[kalt]

Back in the late 60’s-70s it wasnt, you were able to go in right after high school. And I beleive i asid that i didnt agree with them. But I see what kond of person you are when you haave to make fun of the disabled. do some resurch on the disorder. i hape you feel like a real man for you comments about the disabled, you are sick. If this is how you, a Catholic, treats the disables you dont know th e truth because a true christian or someone who claims to know the truth would not say that to someone with a disablility.
You make your catholic religion loo real good with comments like that. with a comment like that you dont have a proper upbringing i bet your parents would be proud of you for that. I cant saay what i really want to becaues i will not stoop down to yur level. you make me sick with a comment like that.

My goodness. You really wanted to say more than that!!

You need to re-read my post to you. I have a degenerative neurological disease. You are preaching to the choir on disability. The difference between you and me is that I don’t play the “disability card” to garner pity and to get out of defending a point I make on this board. Your disability has nothing at all to do with the debate point you made - that Catholics should accept your POV. You supposed seminary stint has been question by more than just me–and for good reason. Pulling the “disability card” to avoid discussing your nearly complete lack of knowledge of Catholic theology, something as utterly simple as “truth”, though supposedly being accepted to the seminary, is truly pathetic. Your disability isn’t pathetic. Your using it the way you do is.

You have already said that you disagree with Catholic theology, so it matters nothing how you think I represent it.

You have been dishonest through this entire thread. And you have tried to back-track on more than one debate point (a kind of dishonesty). Perhaps you should spend more time looking at your own behavior, especially considering your comments were not as bad as what you really wanted to say. Good lord, man, get a grip.

 

[kalt]

I mean visable viable proof!

I still don’t get it. What would constitute visable proof?

 

[kalt]

To the OP:

I wasn’t surprised by the vigor with which Catholics can defend the faith — I was well familiar with it, actually.

I was surprised, however, at how little charity I saw between Catholics. Part of what initially attracted me to Catholicism was the supposed unity of faith Catholics share, but seeing a lot of the Catholic-on-Catholic sniping that went on here nearly derailed it for me.

I say that in the past tense because, IMO, the situation has improved somewhat, and I’m not sure if that’s God’s grace, a deliberate effort by the moderators or just my willingness to not see it anymore.

I didn’t notice the Catholic-on-Catholic fighting, but I don’t always look at the religion of the poster. Actually, except for OTCA I can’t remember who’s Catholic and who isn’t. And I only know she’s Catholic because of her name.

This seems to be a debate board, and I guess the Catholic-against-Catholic debate is proof that we’re not sticking together to debate against non-Catholics. If one of us is way off base, apparently we let them know about it. I guess we don’t put kid gloves on for anyone, not even “our own”.

This seems to put to rest the claim that Catholics “go at” non-Catholics simply because they’re not Catholic. It seems clear that we are actually debating the points not the people. If someone is saying something that doesn’t square with Catholicism, we defend the truth, even if the person is Cathollic!

 

[PJM]

=Sellers1-I mean visible viable proof!

Re: Viable proof of Christ Passion, death and Resurrection.

***Friend let me ask you something. IF I could produce “The NY Times” Sunday edition from year one AD, or maybe from “The Post,” would you be convinced Or would you have to see it on TV?

Don’t panic, I can’t do any of the above because “The NY Times”, “The Post” and TV did not exist at the time But their equivalent “News Services did”

What ones reads in the Bible on this topic is not fiction, or a parable, but a firsthand, eyewitness account of what happened. They were there, and reported what they saw and witnessed.

If for some reason you are either unable or unwilling to accept these as such; that friend is you’re loss, a problem you need to take to your God.

Now for you’re “visible and viable proof” may I suggest that you “GOOGLE” “Eucharistic Miracles.” If you don’t seek truth, you’re much less likely to bump into it.

You’re Bible News Paper accounts can be located in:

Matthew Chapter 27
Mark Chapter 15
Luke Chapter 23
John Chapter 19
And Paul 1 Cor. Chapter 1*

I would point out in summation that this belief is 2,000 years old, that many thousands of men, women and children have given their lives in testimony of this truth, starting with 10 of the 11 original Apostles PLUS St. Paul and a GREAT number of Early Church Popes. As Martyrs they shed their blood, gave their life’s as personal witness to for and with Jesus Christ.**

Love and prayers friend