Protestants who accept OSAS: How do you explain these scriptures?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why did it burn bibles throughout history and burn Christians at the stake for heresy if they spoke against the Church?

I’ve already responded to, why the Church burned Bibles and will attempt to address the other scandal of the Church as listed above.

There was a time that people were killed. These were not the actions of the Church, but men of the Church. To end the Church because of the actions of men, would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would also have made our Lord’s promise to be with us until the end of time a false statement.

You do realize the first scandals of the Church Christ started, actually took place during the life of Christ? (see below)

Joh 4:22 You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know. For salvation is of the Jews.

Mar 14:43 And while he was yet speaking, cometh Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the ancients.
Mar 14:44 And he that betrayed him had given them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Lay hold on him: and lead him away carefully.
Mar 14:45 And when he was come, immediately going up to him he saith: Hail, Rabbi! And he kissed him.
Mar 14:46 But they laid hands on him and held him.

Mar 14:66 Now when Peter was in the court below, there cometh one of the maidservants of the high priest.
Mar 14:67 And when she had seen Peter warming himself looking on him, she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
Mar 14:68 But he denied, saying: I neither know nor understand what thou sayest. And he went forth before the court; and the cock crew.
Mar 14:69 And again a maidservant seeing him, began to say to the standers by: This is one of them.
Mar 14:70 But he denied again. And after a, while they that stood by said again to Peter: Surely thou art one of them; for thou art also a Galilean.
Mar 14:71 But he began o curse and to swear, saying: I know not this man of whom you speak.
Mar 14:72 And immediately the cock crew again. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him: Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me. And he began to weep,

Joh 20:24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Mar 14:50 Then his disciples, leaving him, all fled away.

Rom 3:3 For what if some of them have not believed? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid!
Rom 3:4 But God is true and every man a liar, as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he cannot deny himself.

Mat 13:24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field.
Mat 13:25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.
Mat 13:26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.
Mat 13:27 And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle?
Mat 13:28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?
Mat 13:29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.
Mat 13:30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

Mat 13:47 Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kinds of fishes.
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.

Should we discard our faith in Jesus because of those scandals listed above? I don’t think so.

The protestant churches are not without scandal, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker, just to name a few.

My point is, you cannot condemn the Church for the actions of men. You cannot abandon the Church because of the actions of men.

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Mar 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God said Thou shalt not kill… so will the real church of Christ please stand up.

The Bible said alot of things.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.

Mat 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.
Mat 6:15 But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.

Mat 5:43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
Mat 5:45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?
Mat 5:47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this?
Mat 5:48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

… why does the Catholic church think it needs to interpret it FOR you?

Do you know the traditions of the Church that most protestants ignore? It is written in the Bible to adhere to tradition as well as scriptures.

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Th 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass away.

Paul records words of Jesus not found in the Gospels

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

2Ti 1:13 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Bible alone or Bible plus tradition? Tradition has been passed down to us through the ages, by the Church.

I’ve already shown you that the Catholic Church provided the Bible to all of us by deciding what scriptures were to be included and excluded. In this way, your Bible has already been interpreted for you by the Church. If you were to include Church teachings with your Bible, you might find you have a new interpretation.

Even though I provided scriptures to prove points, I do not recommend pulling out single verses to make points. It is always better to read things in context. Read those verses above and below any verse being provided. Understand who was being spoken too when reading the Bible. Even though we can apply situations to our lives, some instructions given in the Bible were direct communications. For example, not everything the Lord taught the Apostles about his Church was instructions for everyone. See the verses below and tell me how they apply to each and every individual that reads the Bible?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:
1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[distracted]

I have given my understanding of what being born again means.
The RCC position seems to base the required born again experience on physical baptism,

not only on baptism but on Reconciliatioin (confession) & confirmation (i think). also the Catholic Church definitely believes in the indwelling of the Holy spirit (being filled with the Holy Spirit).

but they do not seem to be very clear about whether there is a resulting extra incorruptible divine nature that becomes part of a born-again person’s being.
I tried to be clear that there are two natures:

1. the original sin-nature that all men are born with.
2. a new permanent incorruptible and divine nature (new creature) that is planted by the Holy Spirit at the new birth.

the only thing i believe the Catholic Church would disagree with you on is the word “permanent”… for the most part (just speaking for myself, not the Church)… the change that happens when one is filled with the Holy Sprit is “permanent”… but if a person who has been filled with the Holy spirit totally goes away from Christ, immerses himself in sin (as it were)… that permanent thing you speak of goes away… Being filled wtih the Holy Spirit is a grace from God and sin is the only thing that can make that grace dissipate, even go away… and it does go away… if one sins mortally, and does not repent… (a mortal sin is one that the person KNOWS is a serious sin and that it will affect his relationship with God… and does it anyway…),

We grieve the Holy Spirit when we sin and the Father will chastise us as His children to stop such sinning.

right - and that chastising, if not “finished” here on Earth can be finished in Purgatory… and it MUST be completely finished because, as Rev 21:27 says, no unclean thing will be allowed to enter Heaven.

The new divine nature does not sin and remains permanently a part of us forever. It can not be lost or corrupted.

I believe it is difficult for that divine nature to totally be corrupted… lost… but it IS possible…

There was this serial killer i read about once… I wish i could remember if it was the Green River killer or the I-5 killer or what… (long time since read the book). But anyway, he was at one time a respectable member of the community, even made it to the Green Bay Packers (i believe it was that team)… He was a “born - again” Christian… who threw everything away to go a killing rampage.
For the sake of this discussion, assume for a moment that he really HAD accepted Christ and been filled wtih the Holy Spirit (& from waht i read, i believe that to be the case). Obviously, this guy is not going to enter Heaven as soon as he dies, even if he repents… with all that blood on his hands…

What kind of just God would allow such a thing? People sometimes forget that God is perfectly just…

As stated elsewhere… If God let a person into Heaven who had the slightest stain of sin on his soul (selfishness, greed, etc) it would no longer be Heaven… that one bad apple would spoil the whole bunch… (ruin the happiness of others)…

With this explanation on my part, I would be very interested in how the RCC position differs from my position.

If you say that there is no such extra nature or that it can be lost after having been obtained, then we have a difference that can easily be described and understood.

you don’t seem to fully understand the terrible nature of sin… how it destroys (especially mortal sin). Maybe the the best way to understand the awfulness of sin (aside from experiencing all its consequences) is to look at Jesus on a cross… Look at what he had to go through to pay the price for our sins . And He did that for us because we COULD NOT pay the price… Sin causes consequences that cannot be un-done… except through something as awesome as Christ’s sacrifice… and even then, the person has to APPLY what Christ has done… in order to be fully purified… (Purgatory)…
Does Jesus paying it all mean that nothing is required of us? NO… We are to embrace Christ with all our hearts and minds… & follow Him, always obeying His every word… not just the words that sound nice… Jesus said that the way to eternal life was Narrow and that there are few who find it…

This (along with many other Scriptures) does not sound like OSAS to me… not even…

My impression is that the RCC believes that the old nature just gets cleansed and that there is no new divine nature as the Bible points to.

I don’t know where you get your ideas about the Catholic faith… but i think you should start getting them from a true Catholic who knows the faith… any other source is not going to work… (too much anti-Catholic bias in the wordl).

God bless…

 

[distracted]

And why do you think it is safer to let a church interpret it for you?

If that Church was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, it is “safe” to let the Church interpret for us…

You have a brain, you can read… Jesus encouraged us to search the scriptures to see if these things were so.

at the time, he was speaking of the OT scriptures since the New Testament had not been written… So, are we only to searc hte Old Testament?? It is not good to always take things absolutely literally…

I would be asking the bigger question… why does the Catholic church think it needs to interpret it FOR you? Why did it burn bibles throughout history and burn Christians at the stake for heresy if they spoke against the Church?

the Catholic Church only burned heretical versions of the Bible… so as as safeguard peoples’ souls from false beliefs… And the Church did NOT burn heretics… The Church only interrogated suspected heretics to find out if they were heretics or not… Then the Church gave the person a chance to re-cant… to conform to the true teachings… If the person refused, he was handed over to the state and the state made the decision wehter or not to execute the person. Often priests and bishops would intercede and ask the state not to execute people… (Protestant history books always conveniently leave this infomration out…). So you can blame the individual person who refused to consider that he may be wrong… and/or the state… but not the Church… The Church has always taught that:

God said Thou shalt not kill… .

The real Church stood up 2000 years ago and will always stand… The very gates of Hell (heresies, persecutions) will not prevail against her… (St. Matthew 16:18)

 

[wisdomseeker]

That isn’t entirely true. Let’s examine some of the teachings of the founder of the Protestants:
Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:

• It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
• She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

• Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
  {Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
• Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
  {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
• A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
  {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
• Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
  When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
  {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
  Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
  Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
  {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
• “. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
  Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
• “. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
  Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
• “Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
  (REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
• “Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Martin L was a catholic. he is only stating what learned from the CC…

 

[Chris258]

No one claims that Jesus and the Apostles taught Sola Scriptura; Sola Scriptura only addresses the normative authority after revelation has been given.

So at some arbitrary point in history, Scripture suddenly becomes the sole infallible rule of faith, whereas before this point, the Church relied on what Scripture was emerging and… something else?

The faithful bishops, clerics, and laymen when those heresies were being spread used Scripture to counteract them.

I don’t see how this addresses how one who adheres to Sola Scriptura can ultimately say which of the two opponents is right or wrong. Would you say that heresies can still emerge today? If so, by what authority does a person who adheres to Sola Scriptura denounce another group’s conclusions that are based just as much on Scripture as your counteraction is?

Actually, the majority of the “infallible Magisterium” agreed with Arius for several decades. Athanasius Contra Mundi.

Indeed, Athanasius appealed a great deal to tradition in fighting the Arians.

You make it sound as if the general, undeclared consensus of a group of bishops equals an infallible Magisterium. Is this what you are asserting?

 

[GailMac]

Hmmmmmm…what to add to this discussion…When I look at the notion of once saved always saved with my Catholic eyes, all I see is what we Catholics call the sin of presumption

I’ll give some info.:

Presumption
(Latin praesumere, “to take before”, “to take for granted”).

Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them. Presumption is said to offend against hope by excess, as despair by defect. It will be obvious, however, to one who ponders what is meant by hope, that this statement is not exact. There is only a certain analogy which justifies it. As a matter of fact we could not hope too much, assuming that it is really the supernatural habit which is in question.

Suarez (“De spe”, disp. 2a, sect. 3, n. 2) enumerates five ways in which one may be guilty of presumption, as follows:

1.) by hoping to obtain by one’s natural powers, unaided, what is definitely supernatural, viz. eternal bliss or the recovery of God’s friendship after grievous sin (this would involve a Pelagian frame of mind);
2.) a person might look to have his sins forgiven without adequate penance (this, likewise, if it were based on a seriously entertained conviction, would seem to carry with it the taint of heresy);
3.) a man might expect some special assistance from Almighty God for the perpetration of crime (this would be blasphemous as well as presumptuous);
4.) one might aspire to certain extraordinary supernatural excellencies, but without any conformity to the determinations of God’s providence. Thus one might aspire to equal in blessedness the Mother of God;
5.) finally, there is the transgression of those who, whilst they continue to lead a life of sin, are as confident of a happy issue as if they had not lost their baptismal innocence.

The root-malice of presumption is that it denies the supernatural order, as in the first instance, or travesties the conception of the Divine attributes, as in the others. Theologians draw a sharp distinction between the attitude of one who goes on in a vicious career, precisely because he counts upon pardon, and one whose persistence in wrongdoing is accompanied, but not motivated, by the hope of forgiveness. The first they impeach as presumption of a very heinous kind; the other is not such specifically. In practice it happens for the most part that the expectation of ultimate reconciliation with God is not the cause, but only the occasion, of a person’s continuing in sinful indulgence. Thus the particular guilt of presumption is not contracted.

newadvent.org/cathen/12403a.htm

May I never take the Mercy of God I receive for granted and may I always make efforts to be less sinful. Jesus DIED for me. What do I do in return? Hmmmmmmmm…

Peace,

Gail

 

[myredeemerlives]

“And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not Him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has been truly perfected. By this we know that we are in Him” (1 John 2:3-5 NASB).

Also, I hear Catholics saying that anything not Catholic is just someone’s own interpretation and they are all wrong. However, if you look more closely you’ll find it goes more like this…

Catholics = Bible + Catechism
Mormons = Bible + The book of Mormon
Jehovah’s witnesses = Bible + watchtower society teachings
Islam = Quaran
Christianity = Bible alone

So it’s not ALL churches who are manipulating scripture because true Christianity doesn’t mess with scripture like the other religions do. (yes, including Roman Catholicism… sorry)

 

[Chris258]

Catholics = Bible + Catechism
Mormons = Bible + The book of Mormon
Jehovah’s witnesses = Bible + watchtower society teachings
Islam = Quaran
Sola Scriptura Protestants = Bible alone

There, I fixed it for you.

Anywho, now that the little breakdown has been fixed, how do we go about figuring out who is right?

All other things aside, the fruit of Sola Scriptura speaks for itself, I think. Thousands of denominations all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit into Truth on essential doctrines.

If Sola Scriptura is the right way to form doctrine, either Truth is not absolute, or the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, take your pick.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not Him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has been truly perfected. By this we know that we are in Him” (1 John 2:3-5 NASB).

Also, I hear Catholics saying that anything not Catholic is just someone’s own interpretation and they are all wrong. However, if you look more closely you’ll find it goes more like this…

Catholics = Bible + Catechism
Mormons = Bible + The book of Mormon
Jehovah’s witnesses = Bible + watchtower society teachings
Islam = Quaran
Christianity = Bible alone

So it’s not ALL churches who are manipulating scripture because true Christianity doesn’t mess with scripture like the other religions do. (yes, including Roman Catholicism… sorry)

Did you even read my posts in response to your questions?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[distracted]

“And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not Him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has been truly perfected. By this we know that we are in Him” (1 John 2:3-5 NASB).

thanks for the hard-to-misinterpret scripture… refuting OSAS… not the only one in the Bible by a long shot…

Catholics = Bible + Catechism
Mormons = Bible + The book of Mormon
Jehovah’s witnesses = Bible + watchtower society teachings
Islam = Quaran
Christianity = Bible alone

that’s nonsense… The catechism is just an explanation of things found in the Bible… True, the Church hierarchy relies on more than the Bible… but relies on nothing that contradicts it.

You don’t know history well… For 40 years (or thereabouts) after Christ ascended inot Heaven, there was NO Bible as we know it. There was only the OT… So what did people do for those 40 years?? And even after the NT began to be written down… it had to written by HAND… The printing press wasn’t invented until 1440 (by a Catholic)… and even THEN Bibles were prohibitively expensive so that few could own one personally… Jesus never wrote anything… he told us to preach the gospel to the whole world… What gospel? Certainly not the written gospel… since that did not exist then…

So i guess there were no true Christians until… hmmm… about 400 years ago??:whacky: :hypno:

 

[distracted]

There, I fixed it for you.

actually, i think it would be more like:

Catholic = Bible + magesterium + catechism…

Oh, and most importantly…

• **Real Presence… **

 

[Chris258]

actually, i think it would be more like:

Catholic = Bible + magesterium + catechism…

Oh, and most importantly…

• **Real Presence… **

My bad.

 

[distracted]

There was a time that people were killed. These were not the actions of the Church, but men of the Church. To end the Church because of the actions of men, would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would also have made our Lord’s promise to be with us until the end of time a false statement.

This is only a small part of the best answer to this problem of scandals…

The Church did not put people to death. The Church merely stated who was a heretic and who was not - after much questioning of the suspected heretic… It was the State that decided his fate after being found a true heretic… and the person was always given the chance to save his life by re-canting. True, no one wants to agree to believe in something he doesn’t really believe… but when your life is on the line, you are goingto think twice… In any case, the Church can hardly be blamed for rightfully calling someone a heretic… What? Is the Church supposed to lie and say the person is NOT?? And another thing is that many priests and bishops (and undoubtedly the pope as well?), often interceded and tried to get the sentence down to something less than death… These are facts that the high school and college teachers do not tell you… becasue we live in a Protestant country… which has always practiced anti-Cathlicism…

 

[myredeemerlives]

You don’t know history well… For 40 years (or thereabouts) after Christ ascended inot Heaven, there was NO Bible as we know it. There was only the OT… So what did people do for those 40 years?? And even after the NT began to be written down… it had to written by HAND.

Yes I do know history. I also know that the Catholic church today is nothing like the early Church. I believe that over time the Catholic church has drifted so far from being scriptural it’s no longer what it was. If you read the early church fathers you will see it is saturated in scripture… so there is no point yelling “they had no scripture!” because they obviously knew them well.

You said…
If Sola Scriptura is the right way to form doctrine, either Truth is not absolute, or the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, take your pick.

How you can say this about the holy spirit (even as a joke) is amazing to me, I could never speak against the holy spirit like that. If you are saying that all bible believing Christians believe different things, you will find you are mistaken on that.

Other religions with other doctrines claiming to be from the bible yes… but not Christianity. We all believe the same thing.

It really comes down to authority… what has more authority in your eyes… the Church or Scripture?

If you say Scripture, then that’s what we believe in a nutshell.

 

[Chris258]

You said…
If Sola Scriptura is the right way to form doctrine, either Truth is not absolute, or the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, take your pick.

How you can say this about the holy spirit (even as a joke) is amazing to me, I could never speak against the holy spirit like that. If you are saying that all bible believing Christians believe different things, you will find you are mistaken on that.

Other religions with other doctrines claiming to be from the bible yes… but not Christianity. We all believe the same thing.

It really comes down to authority… what has more authority in your eyes… the Church or Scripture?

If you say Scripture, then that’s what we believe in a nutshell.

At least you agree that it does come down to authority.

So I ask you: by what authority shall I accept your interpretation of the Scriptures? The thousands of denominations all resound in a cacophony that by Scripture Alone, the Holy Spirit has led them to contradicting truths. So by what authority shall I accept the truth you proffer to me?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You don’t know history well… For 40 years (or thereabouts) after Christ ascended inot Heaven, there was NO Bible as we know it. There was only the OT… So what did people do for those 40 years?? And even after the NT began to be written down… it had to written by HAND.

Yes I do know history. I also know that the Catholic church today is nothing like the early Church. I believe that over time the Catholic church has drifted so far from being scriptural it’s no longer what it was. If you read the early church fathers you will see it is saturated in scripture… so there is no point yelling “they had no scripture!” because they obviously knew them well.

You said…
If Sola Scriptura is the right way to form doctrine, either Truth is not absolute, or the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, take your pick.

How you can say this about the holy spirit (even as a joke) is amazing to me, I could never speak against the holy spirit like that. If you are saying that all bible believing Christians believe different things, you will find you are mistaken on that.

Other religions with other doctrines claiming to be from the bible yes… but not Christianity. We all believe the same thing.

It really comes down to authority… what has more authority in your eyes… the Church or Scripture?

If you say Scripture, then that’s what we believe in a nutshell.

If you had read my posts, you will see the Apostles taught the same way Jesus did, oral tradition.

If you had read the early Church fathers as you say you did, you would see they believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. That being, consecrated bread and wine became the body and blood of our Lord.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[distracted]

Yes I do know history.

just being honest, but No, you don’t. And you don’t know the Catholic faith you so easily attack. Take an RCIA class and then maybe we can talk…

Or we can talk right now if you like to argue…

You don’t know the Church (or history) or you wouldn’t say this:

I also know that the Catholic church today is nothing like the early Church. I believe that over time the Catholic church has drifted so far from being scriptural it’s no longer what it was.

an acorn that is planted in the ground isn’t going to look like an acorn in 50 years either… so that doesn’t tell me much…

If you read the early church fathers you will see it is saturated in scripture…

and also in Catholicism… (the Eucharist, the Real Presence, etc.)

so there is no point yelling “they had no scripture!” because they obviously knew them well.

Who is yelling about no Scripture?? The Catholics are not the ones who say Sola Scriptura…
Ay… Mi cabeza, mi cabeza!! uch:

How you can say this about the holy spirit (even as a joke) is amazing to me, I could never speak against the holy spirit like that.

because you are so holy and poster is not?? hmmmm…

If you are saying that all bible believing Christians believe different things, you will find you are mistaken on that.

What the??? Did i read this correctly??

Ay… Mi cabeza, mi cabeza!!:banghead:

so… all of Jesus can be put into a book… Ok… :whacky:

 

[myredeemerlives]

They also taught that we are saved by grace alone.