Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[christian1]

To Steve GC

you said:
That’s a cheap shot, and an uncharitable generalization.

I have to agree, the tenor in which it was spoken for sure.

you said:
I wonder how many pastors you’ve eagerly listened to and agreed with their teaching, that aren’t nearly as righteous as you might imagine them to be.

And you would be correct in this comparison. The thing is Steve, I think the point he should have made fairly is, just like your religion is filled with teachers in authority who sin, so does mine. Therefore, I trust no man to be infallable but listen to what they have to say and test the spirit behind it by God’s Word. If we apply a sincere heart to learning the Word, the Holy Spirit will be able to teach. This is the requirement for men to become Holy, and anybody who has the desire to be such, God has promised that He is no respector of person, He will give them the wisdom they seek without measure.

That is why Jesus tells us that ‘each man’ will answer. If we submit our lives to the interpretations of men without using the Word of God as an authority, we risk following a man instead of God as in Jesus days.

For he told the teachers of the laws in those days, ‘you make them two-fold a child of hell that you are’ by their false teachings.

Because many of the people put their faith in the teachers. The Word of God is here for us to ensure this does not happen. We will be without excuse in the day of judgement. If a man claiming to be infallable turns out to be fallable what will God use to judge you by? He will most certainly want an account of such a teaching to be found in His Holy Word that was given by Him through His church. Do you think that the seven churches in revelation were not as good as your churches today? Do you suppose they have become better over time? Do you really believe that error in the doctrines and dogma are not a possibility given all the warnings that Christ gave?

You are the only one who can decide that. You will have to determine for your own soul what to compare doctrines to. The word of men after Christ, or the words of men, that were with Christ.

 

[christian1]

SteveGC:

Cart before the horse, Jerry. That’s the best way I think I can put it anymore. I’ve tried and tried to explain it. Thread after thread, post after post. Cart before the horse. The Bible wasn’t the first thing inspired. It was MEN. THAT’S where it ALL primarily lies. I’m not going to put my stamp of SOLE AUTHORITY in something that was inspired AS A RESULT of PRIOR inspiration. No. Give me the ORIGINAL Inspiration, thank you. That’s where truth is. It’s in the Bible too, but it’s in there because the HUMANS were inspired. I don’t go chasing after ANY OLD HUMANs, though. They MUST be the REAL DEAL. The ACTUAL MEN who retain apostleship. Apostleship means the unbroken lineage of ordination, starting with Peter and the 11, through the validly documented ECFs, on and on, up until 2009, and beyond. That’s where it is, friends.

---

I think I’ll try to clear up what we believe.

You see, we believe in the MEN. Because they WERE INSPIRED BY GOD.

Now the question is:
Who is more important?

The inspired men? The Inspirer? Or the writings themselves?

Are they not ALL one and the same???

 

[christian1]

Jerry:

you said:
wow, josie, if God says NO ONE will be lost then NO ONE will be lost, do i have to put the Scripture out here again?

If we are to be governed by the scripture Jerry, it’s important to consider them in their entirety on a subject.

On the subject that you refer to, our catholic friends believe in faith with works.

So do our brothers Peter and Paul. It is plainly written in the scripture and of course we are all being led into the truth if we are seeking with an open mind and pure heart.

Faith, without works is dead.

As for as the no one will be lost scripture. You are right. They will not be, as long as they choose to remain in Him. It is always a choice, we can make it and we can break it. Nobody can take us from His hand, no force in Heaven or under the earth. But we, can choose to fall away.

Just as Paul said:

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

I myself am continuously being led into truth. I do not resist the Holy Spirit’s guidance of me, or else I might finish learning.

Consider the above. I know we don’t all hold to the same beliefs Jerry, but I do believe that the Spirit is guiding those who truly seek to a unity.

God Bless

 

[Jerry_Marino]

look here missy
you try to twist things around but you try to keep your salvation while i trust in Christ to hold me

Holy Spirit is how you are able to understand the Bible and by the looks of it…well for those who have just joined us you can interpret this verse for us.

John 6:39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

missy you seem to filled with the Spirit, what does Jesus mean with the statement that this is the will of the one who sent me? then the Lord goes on to say what that will is: ‘that i should not lose anything of what he gave me.’ so if this is the will of God Almighty who are we to say that one can be lost? remember, salvation isn’t based on you earning it but the grace of God, it is a gift. with that said God set His grace on the saved since i believe this in me not because of what i did but because of what He has done for me, i have this promise of security.

missy in verse 40 the Lord goes on to explain the will of the Father which is, that all who see the Son and BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life, and He shall raise us (believers) on the last day.

WOW! what a wonderful God i serve.

missy this only applies to those who are saved by God not those who are saved by their own merit.

God bless you all

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Jerry:

you said:
wow, josie, if God says NO ONE will be lost then NO ONE will be lost, do i have to put the Scripture out here again?

If we are to be governed by the scripture Jerry, it’s important to consider them in their entirety on a subject.

On the subject that you refer to, our catholic friends believe in faith with works.

So do our brothers Peter and Paul. It is plainly written in the scripture and of course we are all being led into the truth if we are seeking with an open mind and pure heart.

Faith, without works is dead.

As for as the no one will be lost scripture. You are right. They will not be, as long as they choose to remain in Him. It is always a choice, we can make it and we can break it. Nobody can take us from His hand, no force in Heaven or under the earth. But we, can choose to fall away.

Just as Paul said:

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

I myself am continuously being led into truth. I do not resist the Holy Spirit’s guidance of me, or else I might finish learning.

Consider the above. I know we don’t all hold to the same beliefs Jerry, but I do believe that the Spirit is guiding those who truly seek to a unity.

God Bless

faith without works is dead, AMEN!

so what? i am in agreement with that. what does that have to do with the security that God has given us?

i know what Scripture says my friend

we are not talking of works here, they bring this from another thread, if you are called by the Father and given to the Son, you are secure.

if you want to talk of works, works are not part of the salvation which is perfectly pointed out in galatians.

my works come by my faith so if i have no works my faith is worthless it is there in James from which you quoted, i am saved.

i know it.

my hope is that you all will live by faith.

Hebrews 11

Jesus saves, He is the only way.

God bless you all

 

[MrS]

look here missy

Well, I looked over a lot of the recent posts to see to whom jerry could be talking.

I am left with just one option… that it might be me…MrS. hhmmmm

MrS is not quite Mrs which seems to have simply confused jerry.

If I am correct, that you are talking to Mr S., me, then I thank you jerry… you have given a good eample of what many are trying to tell you…

That you can look at the plain evidence, right in front of your face… and be wrong.

So, now you have been informed by a higher authority - me - of your error. You can choose to accept the correction, or continue in your ways.

.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

I am beginning to think my Bible is missing something, perhaps:

.

Matthew 29: 1,ff …(Somebody’s sermon in the valley…sure was not Jesus)

And again as was just commissioned, let it stand corrected and thus, go forth, hand out letters to all nations, and let them read for themselves and interpret for themselves… let them do the work but not call it work.

Let them have their sinners prayer and their altar call, for they need not have an altar at all.

Let them hire their own faith leaders who will teach them what they want to hear.

Let them demean THE Church to make their building look like the real center of truth.

Let them call upon the Holy Spirit as the one who teaches different things to different groups.

Let them refrain from the Baptism of water AND the Holy Spirit… until they feel a once in a lifetime moment of salvation. Do not prevent them from this experience when it happens again and again (thanks Abe).

Let them walk away from the tough sayings they read… and call it just symbolic, for they can determine on their own what IS and what is not.

Let them self interpret, for they are bound to find another to agree with them… and thus they have found their truth.

Let them be encouraged to memorize a verse, memorize a meaning to that verse, and memorize a response to reject that which can teach them of their error.

Let them justify divorce, contraception, and even fornication, for relativism will become the way for many.

Let them be wary… for In God’s time, He will open their eyes, offer them the graces necessary, and return them to the one fold. For there is but One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism eek, and sooner or later they will have to admit that.

Let them be called believers. Just don’t confuse the issue by requiring a full and trusting belief in all the Truth… which will be found in the letters they read, but interpret on their own to their own destruction.

Let them be satisfied with their accomplishments, thinking that what they do is from above.

Let them adapt to their beliefs to a current life’s needs, for the truth about Truth is not for humans to really understand.

Let them know when to respond and when to remain silent. If someone from THE Church tries to explain the promises, the instructions, the commands found earlier in this letter… delay, ignore, confuse… for the members of THE Church will often stop trying and their numbers will be filled with the lazy.

Finally, if you are troubled by one or more teaching of your group… simply call on the Holy Spirit and start your own group. Good Luck with that.

.

Don’t know what bible you’re talking about but there isn’t a Matthew 29.

You know, Catholics are quick to call Protestants attackers of the Catholic church, simply because a catholic doctrine goes against scripture but this is insane.

Hiring faith leaders? Does the catholic church not hire priests and pay them?

“Let them demean THE Church to make their building look like the real center of truth”
Protestants dont focus on a building and Christ is wherever two or more are gathered in His name.

We are all given the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of Baptism. And who said there are many?

Some things in scripture IS symbolic.

No one in interpreting scripture by themselves. Some people twist it to fit their own needs.

If a doctrine is being taught, from any church, that goes against scripture, you better be sure that a bible believing Christian will rebuke it.

Where does scripture teach against contraception? We all know what is taught about fornicating. Divorce… Christ teaches it is wrong for any reason BUT sexual immorality.
Besides that, if your husband was raping you, abusing you and your children, do you think that God expects you to remain in the abuse?

I could go on in refuting your comments but for now, at least, I think this is enough.

 

[josie_L]

wow, josie, if God says NO ONE will be lost then NO ONE will be lost, do i have to put the Scripture out here again?

thank you for the prayers

God bless you

Who are these “no one” you refer to?

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

ProudJesusFreak;5006038:

We has Catholics believe Jesus is Head of the Church in its entirety (in Heaven and on Earth), that being said, he still did leave us with a representative, a person of singular authority (to lead us) here on Earth, who would in the words of our Lord, “feed my sheep” and “take care of my sheep” that person to whom he was speaking to was none other than Peter (this Peter was also given the power to loose and bind by Jesus). Peter has first Pope was given authority (and was protected by Jesus as per his promise in Matthew 16) to tend and feed the flock till the time came when Jesus would return.

Actually, from scripture we see that authority was shared between the Apostles, not just one of them. Ephesians 2:18-10 “the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone”. The authority was given to all of the Apostles. More than once He said to all of the Apostles, not just Peter. Matthew 18:17-19. Not only that, but the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Refer to Peters own writings.

1 Peter 5

1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.

4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Since you claim that all popes are infallible in all matters of faith, did that also apply to Peter?

 

[SteveGC]

What do you think?

Admittedly, that original post was not my words, but a brief excerpt from an article from a CAF Apologist. Nevertheless, I disagree with you. To explain more, I’ll direct you to this post, and then you can tell me what you think. Read and click the links within it as well. I think the bottom line is that ‘until’ can be used in both ways, and therefore, no argument can be made against Mary’s virginity based on Mt 1:25. Seems to me there is more evidence, in and out of Scripture to support it.

Click here

God Bless

 

[Always_For_Him]

ProudJesusFreak

YOU say Catholic doctrine goes against Scripture. Scriture IS Catholic teaching WRITTEN DOWN. We KNEW then what it meant in context then as we KNOW NOW what it means in context.

You are espousing the truth of ProudJesusFreak. Whether you believe it or not, you ARE right now, teaching YOUR personal interpretation and feeling of what YOU believe Scripture to mean as truth. AND, your beliefs ARE influenced by anyone in your life who has taught you anything about religion and anything that you personally have read and interpretted to mean something has influenced your belief as well. The Bible speaks of NOT personally interpretting Scripture for yourself. It also speaks of NOT deviating from the Traditions and teachings as have been taught by BOTH Jesus and the Apostles. When you come to your own conclusions and spout some of the stuff that has NEVER been a belief in Christianity until the Reformers, less than 500 year-old man-made teachings, you show where you are influenced.

It is pretty apparent that there is much that you don’t know about typology and foreshadowing from the OT, the significance of changing a name, binding and loosing, giving the keys of the Kingdom (David’s key), the manna, the Eucharist, what “do this in rememberence” really means, etc…

You are going up against 2,000 years of Apostolic Church history that is recorded for YOU TO READ, that teaches everything you need to know. The Church has ALWAYS taught starting with the Apostles, that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist. All the ECF’s wrote and taught about it. Take the time to read what the early Church believed before you speak on this any further.

Man has gotten rid of tradition over the last 500 years to found his own churches. That is not of Christ, but of man. JESUS instituted and GAVE us the sacraments. They are beautiful and were designed to give grace so we can experience and live in that beautiful grace until Jesus’ return. That is how Jesus wanted it. Just because you were never taught that they mean anything, doesn’t mean you know the truth of the matter. You know man’s truth as you have been taught or have come to believe on your own.

The Church and Oral and Sacred Tradition predate the Bible. The Catholic Church passed Christ’s Deposit of Faith by oral teaching and by Sacred Tradition for centuries before the canon of the Bible was collected, determined inspired and closed, and for another millenium before the Bible was printed on a printing press. MOST people couldn’t read or afford a Bible even at the time of Luther, so it was STILL being taught by the Church and protected from all kinds of heresy up until the Reformation.

Who are you to determine what in Scripture is symbolic and what is not? What other symbolic teaching of Jesus made his disciples WALK AWAY FROM HIM?

You ARE interpreting scripture for yourself. When you teach something other than the 2,000 year-old Apostolic Truth, you are twisting it to fit your own needs.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach doctrine that goes against Scripture. It doesn’t fit for you because YOU have interpreted it in error outside of the authority of the Church who gave you the Bible and KNOWS what it means.

In regards to contraception, it has NEVER been approved by the Church. You do know that NOT ONE Christian church approved of using ANY form of contraception until the 1930’s right? The financial hardship of the depression brought on the limited permission for some Christian churches. But, over time, MAN, for his own convenience, didn’t give it up and it became acceptable for most all non-Catholic churches. This is where Tradition as has always existed from the time of the Apostles helps us to know the answer to contraception. It is mentioned in Genesis about spilling the seed and Onan being struck down for doing so. There are other reasons as well. Why is it that no church approved of it until 1930 and now they do? Just because it is convenient for you DOESN’T mean YOU have the authority to say the Catholic Church is wrong for not allowing contraception.

The Bible was never supposed to be separated from the authority of the Catholic Church that taught it, protected it, wrote it, and is the ONLY one that can teach the contextual meaning of it.

 

[Always_For_Him]

All of the Apostles were given authority, but Peter has supreme authority. The Apostles knew that too. It is too much to go into on this thread as it is about to close. There are some fantastic threads, some have closed (but would still be a great read) that discuss Peter as the supreme authority among the apostles. I am not suprised to learn that your church hasn’t taught you that Truth either.

 

[MrS]

Don’t know what bible you’re talking about but there isn’t a Matthew 29.

You know, Catholics are quick to call Protestants attackers of the Catholic church, simply because a catholic doctrine goes against scripture but this is insane.

Actually when someone, Catholic or Protestant attacks the Catholic Church we should be quick(er) to defend the only Church founded by Jesus Christ. You should too.

Hiring faith leaders? Does the catholic church not hire priests and pay them?

Nope. The vocation to the priesthood includes vows of obedience to the Church. The bishop of the diocese where the priest is subject to can assign him to whereever the bishop needs him… not to a parish of his choice, or the parishioners choice. The priest cannot go where he wants to go and negotiate housing, income etc.
Their annual stipend, or salary if you wish, is sparse… enough to live simply.

“Let them demean THE Church to make their building look like the real center of truth”
Protestants dont focus on a building and Christ is wherever two or more are gathered in His name.

“…two or more…” Please look up that verse… then go back to verse 15 I think, and re-read on past verse 20. It is a great verse to show the authority of the CHURCH, not the two or more who gather. If you don’t listen … even to the Church… you are anathema.

We are all given the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of Baptism. And who said there are many?

Given…yes. So? The reference I think you are referring to is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, right. The point being made is that many do not think much of baptism… and they often think one must ask for this gift at a certain age of moment in time… but… that One Baptism is right up there with One Lord and One Faith.

Catholics know that Baptism is critical to our eternal future… it is a Sacrament from

Some things in scripture IS symbolic.

No one in interpreting scripture by themselves. Some people twist it to fit their own needs.

If a doctrine is being taught, from any church, that goes against scripture, you better be sure that a bible believing Christian will rebuke it.

A more acceptable comment might be:
If a “doctrine” is being taught outside the authority which Jesus gave to the Apostles to hand on to their successors…, and it ALSO goes against the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, then ANY person who wants to be a believer should rebuke it.

Where does scripture teach against contraception? We all know what is taught about fornicating. Divorce… Christ teaches it is wrong for any reason BUT sexual immorality.
Besides that, if your husband was raping you, abusing you and your children, do you think that God expects you to remain in the abuse?

Contraception - the pill - is also an abortifax(?). It prevents life. Any time you take God out of the equation (man+woman+God = new life)… well… you have taken God out. Not part of His instruction to go forth and multiply. Unless Matt 29 should include “…multiply if it is convenient for you…”

Next… divorce is a reality. Catholics understand that. But only the Catholic Church forbids the remarriage… and we call it adultry. Does your faith community forbide remarriage?

I could go on in refuting your comments but for now, at least, I think this is enough.

There are hundreds of members here who can respond if you choose to go on. You are denying, not refuting.

hahahaha
Thank you for making my day… of course there is no Matt 29. The point I was trying to make is that for the Scriptures to mean what protestants often think they mean… there would have to things like Matt 29 to refute or recind the teachings of Christ.

.

 

[SteveGC]

And you would be correct in this comparison. The thing is Steve, I think the point he should have made fairly is, just like your religion is filled with teachers in authority who sin, so does mine. Therefore, I trust no man to be infallable…

You are probably mistaking what the Church teaches as infallibility. It is quite common to misunderstand it. It does not mean impeccability, or sinlessness. No one is granted that charism. Infallibility is a negative charism, meaning that infallibility is something that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from doing—namely, formally teaching error. It is not that the Church knows all things, but that by the will of God, his Church will always be preserved from error, enabling her to pass on the purity of the apostles’ teaching. Since there is a finite set of inerrant teachings (from Christ) on faith and morals, this teaching has been achieved long ago, back in the early age of The Church. Thus, the charism of infallibility is a rarely utilized (or necessary) charism anymore. I think the last time was over 50 years ago, to clarify an existing doctrine. Infallible doesn’t even apply to a local parish priest. But priests, and all religious must teach their parishes in accordance with the protected Magisterial teachings. This is why internal sinfulness within The Church is tragic and sorrowful, but in NO WAY detracts from the infallibility and Spirit-led nature of The Church. This is why I am not swayed in my faith when tragedy like this strikes within the bosom.

…but listen to what they have to say and test the spirit behind it by God’s Word. If we apply a sincere heart to learning the Word, the Holy Spirit will be able to teach.

Again, we cannot use Scripture on our own for determining who is telling us the truth, for several reasons…

1. Our own reading and understanding of Scripture is already tainted by an enormous composition of human teaching, much of which is probably fallible (unprotected from the HS, if it’s non-Catholic). So, to say we can bring Scripture into the chaotic array of human teaching to be the litmus test because we have an unbiased and Holy Spirit-inspired ‘understanding’ of the truths within it, is absolutely absurd, I’m sorry. It’s like saying I’ll be the judge at my child’s piano recital contest, and I’ll remain unbiased and won’t judge everyone else to her standard. I’m tainted. I cannot be impartial. Because I already have a long history with my child. Likewise we already have a long human-based history with our Bibles. We can’t bring our Bibles to a debate over doctrine, without bringing along the authentic teaching that originated outside of it…which brings me to my second point…
2. The Bible is NOT incipient. It didn’t come to be without someone (many ones) KNOWING what was inspired about it in the first place. The compilers (The Church) did not compile and canonize the Bible just because of who wrote the scriptures, but rather WHAT was contained in the scriptures. They already KNEW what Christ taught infallibly, and THAT’S why they made it into the canon, and THAT’S why we have the Bible as we have it today (atleast that’s true of the Catholic Bible, with ALL the books). So to treat Scripture as if we can take it today, read it for ourselves OUTSIDE of the light of Sacred Tradition (the knowledge of the apostolic successors), to determine matters of faith and morals is, again, absurd.

So, it’s not The Scriptures which protect us from false teachers…it’s The Church. I find scriptural debates silly, not because Scripture is silly, or unnecessary, or not Sacred. It is a pillar of The Church, on par and harmonious with Sacred Tradition. But although we’ll never find anything in Scripture contrary to Church teaching, I don’t bother in debating something from it, because ultimately I put my spiritual trust in Christ, and my intellectual and emotional trust in His Church, Christ’s earthly authority until He returns. Scripture just happens to be an integral part of The Church. Without The Church, I would never have known about Christ in the first place. None of us would have.

You are the only one who can decide that. You will have to determine for your own soul what to compare doctrines to. The word of men after Christ, or the words of men, that were with Christ.

As I’ve said. The word of men I follow today ARE of the same spirit as the men that WERE with Christ. That’s why I think all debates should really just be about Apostolic Succession, the fact that it DOES exist, was meant to exist, and can historically be proven to reside within The Catholic Church. That’s the real issue.

 

[josie_L]

look here missy
you try to twist things around but you try to keep your salvation while i trust in Christ to hold me

Holy Spirit is how you are able to understand the Bible and by the looks of it…well for those who have just joined us you can interpret this verse for us.

John 6:39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

in verse 40 the Lord goes on to explain the will of the Father which is, that all who see the Son and BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life, and He shall raise us (believers) on the last day.

God bless you all

Can you not see the difference between using a word like “should” rather than using a word, for example like “will” in the scripture you quoted:

"that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

or

“that I will not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I will raise it (on) the last day.”

Do you notice how with the word “should” there is a conditional aspect involved, implying that there is a possibility of losing what was given to us. This is how the word “should” is defined in a dictionary:

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
   3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Now, the word “will”, in the above scripture connotes something stronger, an absolute, implying therefore no possibility of losing what was given to us. However, John specifically uses the word “should” not “will” has inspired by God to do so.

And the other thing you must remember, Jerry, is that if there was no possibility of losing our gift of salvation, then why bother even stating that God should not want us to lose what was given to us.

OSAS is heretical.

God Bless you, Jerry, please come back home.

 

[MrS]

;5006685:

Since you claim that all popes are infallible in all matters of faith, did that also apply to Peter?

No knowledgable Catholic will state that any, much less all, Popes are infallible. If you say things like that, you prove the point that perhaps you do not know the question… hence you cannot understand the answer.

In Brief:

Infallibility is God’s Promise that the Holy Spirt will prevent the {1} Pope, and {2} the Pope and the Bishops in union with him… from teaching and declaring as Doctrine (something that all mankind in all ages must accept as Truth) anything that is not Truth.

It is a negative protection. Much of what past popes have offered is not binding on our faith. It may be inspiring… it may be santifying… it may be life changing. But unless it is declared as Truth from “the chair of Peter”… infallibility does not apply.

God promised His One Church that the gates of hell (error) would not PREVAIL. God did not promise this to any other group. God did not promise that those in the Catholic Church would be sinless or errorless… but He did promise they would never have false Doctrine.

Since your faith community does not have this promise… you must always be in doubt of the everchanging doctrines found in the thousands of groups which are not the Catholic Church.

.

 

[christian1]

To my brother Jerry:

You should know that I am not a missy though I understand how you might draw that conclusion.

you said:
that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him…

---

This is the crux of it right here.

sees the son and believes in him.

What does the word say about believe? What does that mean?

Let us see: What does believe mean?

G4100
πιστεύω
pisteuō
pist-yoo’-o
From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Now, what is "faith"?
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by **faith. **

So we see that to believe and have faith is the same?

Ok, now let’s examine faith. James covers it beautifully.

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Jas 2:17 *Even so *faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that **faith without works is dead? **

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Jas 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Jas 2:24 Ye see then **how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. **

Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Jas 2:26 **For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. **

I hope you take these truths to heart so that your faith or belief in Christ may be perfected.

God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

---

I think I’ll try to clear up what we believe.

You see, we believe in the MEN. Because they WERE INSPIRED BY GOD.

Now the question is:
Who is more important?

The inspired men? The Inspirer? Or the writings themselves?

Are they not ALL one and the same???

This is the Catholic position, christian1. It ALL comes from God, the Inspirer. And the inspired men AND the inspired writings are equally important. But we have a disconnect on who the inspired men were, and also what their role was to be. You would say that the only inspired men were the ones whose writings were selected as inspired by The Church and made it into the Bible. We say it’s them, but also the men selected to be Christ’s earthly shepherds, leaders of His Church, protected by the Spirit. The Apostles. Some of these men also wrote scripture, many of them did not.

Furthermore, the inspiration is not finite, although the originally inspired men passed from this earth. Their inspiration was to live on, in some cases through the Bible, but PRIOR to the Bible, the inspired men of The Church lived on through succession, through ‘laying on of hands’ to transfer the charism of the protective shield of the Holy Spirit, in order to carry on the mission of Christ’s Church. This laying on of hands can be found biblically, but it is anterior to Scripture, because The Church is not confined to Scripture, although, again, Scripture naturally supports and documents The Church.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

ProudJesusFreak

YOU say Catholic doctrine goes against Scripture. Scriture IS Catholic teaching WRITTEN DOWN. We KNEW then what it meant in context then as we KNOW NOW what it means in context.

No, I KNOW some catholic doctrines go against scripture because it is there in black and white. You can’t really argue with something what has been around since before the time of Christ(Old Testament).

You have it wrong again. I believe strictly what scripture teaches. Such as we have ALL sinned and fallen short.And that if we say we do not sin, the truth is not in us. It is not MY PERSONAL opinion, it is what scripture says. Technically, it says to not interpret PROPHECY for yourself.

It is pretty apparent that there is much that you don’t know about typology and foreshadowing from the OT, the significance of changing a name, binding and loosing, giving the keys of the Kingdom (David’s key), the manna, the Eucharist, what “do this in rememberence” really means, etc…

“DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE” means to do it remembrance. It has ONE meaning, not whatever the CC says it means.

You are going up against 2,000 years of Apostolic Church history that is recorded for YOU TO READ, that teaches everything you need to know. The Church has ALWAYS taught starting with the Apostles, that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist. All the ECF’s wrote and taught about it. Take the time to read what the early Church believed before you speak on this any further.

I believe what Christ taught and the men that were His Apostles. With the exception of Matthew, there is no record of biblical succession.If something goes against scripture, I am going to challenge it, plain and simple. Popes are infallible? Why was Peter rebuked by not only Christ but Paul as well?

Man has gotten rid of tradition over the last 500 years to found his own churches. That is not of Christ, but of man. JESUS instituted and GAVE us the sacraments. They are beautiful and were designed to give grace so we can experience and live in that beautiful grace until Jesus’ return. That is how Jesus wanted it. Just because you were never taught that they mean anything, doesn’t mean you know the truth of the matter. You know man’s truth as you have been taught or have come to believe on your own.

Where did Christ institute last rights? We don’t have to marry OR be ordained.

The Church and Oral and Sacred Tradition predate the Bible.

You do realize that Christ also taught what was in the Old Testament as well? I wonder why He always used scripture and never tradition? Why is cannibalism taught against in ALL of scripture except one spot? You have to read the whole thing, not just one spot. Christ consistently taught by using parables and was not always literal.

Who are you to determine what in Scripture is symbolic and what is not? What other symbolic teaching of Jesus made his disciples WALK AWAY FROM HIM?

You ARE interpreting scripture for yourself. When you teach something other than the 2,000 year-old Apostolic Truth, you are twisting it to fit your own needs.

No, I go by strictly what scripture teaches us. Scripture says all have sinned? I believe that. Scripture says Christ is the head of the church? I believe that.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach doctrine that goes against Scripture. It doesn’t fit for you because YOU have interpreted it in error outside of the authority of the Church who gave you the Bible and KNOWS what it means.

The CC teaches that Mary was sinless, that the Pope is the head of the church, that the eucharist forgives sins(it does look it up in the cathechism) the pope is infallible,purgatory and more. The CC teaches thats its members are Christ, not Christ like, but Christ Himself(don’t believe me? Look it up in the catechism as well). Those things are most definitely against scripture.

In regards to contraception, it has NEVER been approved by the Church. You do know that NOT ONE Christian church approved of using ANY form of contraception until the 1930’s right? The financial hardship of the depression brought on the limited permission for some Christian churches. But, over time, MAN, for his own convenience, didn’t give it up and it became acceptable for most all non-Catholic churches. This is where Tradition as has always existed from the time of the Apostles helps us to know the answer to contraception. It is mentioned in Genesis about spilling the seed and Onan being struck down for doing so. There are other reasons as well. Why is it that no church approved of it until 1930 and now they do? Just because it is convenient for you DOESN’T mean YOU have the authority to say the Catholic Church is wrong for not allowing contraception.

The Church doesn’t have to support the use of contraception. Is it wrong to use contraception if a pregnancy could literally kill you? If a pregnancy would put my life in danger, am I wrong for using a condom or birth control pills? And I never said anything about the CC being wrong for its stance on contraception.

The Bible was never supposed to be separated from the authority of the Catholic Church that taught it, protected it, wrote it, and is the ONLY one that can teach the contextual meaning of it.

Says who? The CC is the one that killed people for having copies of the bible. The laity wasn’t allowed to have copies for themselves. I wonder why that is? The CC would say its to keep people from having thier own interpretation but I thinks its because they didn’t want anyone to know that they were teaching things that were not true.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

ProudJesusFreak;5008376:

No knowledgable Catholic will state that any, much less all, Popes are infallible. If you say things like that, you prove the point that perhaps you do not know the question… hence you cannot understand the answer.

But the Catechism DOES teach that.“In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s livi ng magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith.” Pg. 235, #889 “The Roman Pontiff… enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.” Pg. 235, #891 “The pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’ s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.” Pg. 235, #890

“The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.” Pg. 495, #2051

In Brief:

Infallibility is God’s Promise that the Holy Spirt will prevent the {1} Pope, and {2} the Pope and the Bishops in union with him… from teaching and declaring as Doctrine (something that all mankind in all ages must accept as Truth) anything that is not Truth.

Where does God promise infallibility?
It is a negative protection. Much of what past popes have offered is not binding on our faith. It may be inspiring… it may be santifying… it may be life changing. But unless it is declared as Truth from “the chair of Peter”… infallibility does not apply.

God promised His One Church that the gates of hell (error) would not PREVAIL. God did not promise this to any other group. God did not promise that those in the Catholic Church would be sinless or errorless… but He did promise they would never have false Doctrine.

According to YOUR catechism, popes and other catholic leaders cannot make errors where faith and morals are concerned. If you don’t believe that, then you might want to reevaluate. False doctrines run rampant with the Catholic Church, this being one of them.The only thing that is infallible is scripture? How do we know? Jesus Christ and His apostles taught it.

Since your faith community does not have this promise… you must always be in doubt of the everchanging doctrines found in the thousands of groups which are not the Catholic Church.

Actually, seeing as how I go strictly scripture, I do not have to worry about anything.

.