second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Kliska]

Yes, you do.

You bristle when the magisterium tells you, “You are in error”.

But reserve for yourself the right to tell others, “You are in error.”

PR, I most certainly don’t. It doesn’t bother me at all when the magisterium tells me I’m in error, that is their right to think so. As with other things people tell me, I pray about it, take it seriously, study it compared with scriptural teachings to see if it is true. If it isn’t I feel no compunction with stating that the magisterium is in error, I also feel no compunction with stating that the magisterium is correct in certain teachings as well.

And now, with my psychic powers, I am going to predict that someone here is going to bow out of the discussion with something like, “Thank you very much. But I have nothing more to say here!”.

I didn’t know I was under compulsion to continue in conversations where either 1) Someone personally insults God; the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, my brothers/sisters in Christ, or myself. They are free to keep insulting, that’s their right. or 2) the conversation goes in endless circles, and a poor dead horse keeps getting beaten continually. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Kliska]

Yet what books were considered scripture at the time of Pentecost? Old Testament writings only yet the Jew’s did not have an agreed to canon of OT scripture. So which OT writings do you believe are inspired and inerrant and why? The apostles used the septuagint which included the Deuterocanonical’s. Both Catholics and Orthodox have considered them inspired and inerrant for 1,600+ years. You side with the Pharisees and exclude them. Why?

Perfect. You agree that the Holy Spirit led the Catholic Church to all Truth in deciding which books should be in the NT as the NT does not come with a list of inspired books. You hold that the Catholic Church was infallible in deciding that 27 NT writings are inspired and inerrant, out of a couple of hundred writings at the time. You agree with the Catholic Council of Rome (382ad), Synod of Hippo (393ad), Synod of Carthage (397), Council of Florence (1431) as well as the Council of Trent.

That the Catholic Church got the NT “right” in your mind, and the OT “wrong” is a problematic position to hold. If you can not trust the Church on getting the OT number of books right, then neither can you trust that it got the NT right either.

Interesting too that the Original King James Version, 1511, had 73 books.

I didn’t trust it just because someone told me to trust it. Just like Cardinal Cajetan didn’t. As I’ve stated elsewhere (and been called a liar for it), I have delved into which books I personally believe to be inspired. You can double check it too. The other point, is that there has never been one agreed upon canon in Christendom. There are reasons for disagreements. You can study that too.

The point is that we ALL agree that there are now writings that are indeed scripture; inspired by God, and the word of God. We can use them just as the Bereans did, and yes, that includes the OT.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I didn’t know I was under compulsion to continue in conversations where either 1) Someone personally insults God; the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, my brothers/sisters in Christ, or myself. They are free to keep insulting, that’s their right. or 2) the conversation goes in endless circles, and a poor dead horse keeps getting beaten continually. I have better things to do with my time.

1. If I have insulted you, I apologize.
2. That is a 2 way street where you have not been able to prove your position. We have shown from logic, history and Scriptures ours. You want to hold to your personal belief, you are free to choose - but when you declare yourself an authority over others - then you open yourself to be challenged.

 

[Kliska]

Nothing in Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture.

If that were true, or the Holy Spirit directs me to this idea, then I’d be Roman Catholic. In short, we disagree.

 

[Kliska]

1. If I have insulted you, I apologize.

The comment wasn’t directed to you specifically, just a general statement. I’ve been called out by those who think I’ve insulted the Roman Catholic Church in the past, that isn’t my intent either, and I’ve apologized for that as well. Charity and forgiveness are wonderful things.

1. That is a 2 way street where you have not been able to prove your position. We have shown from logic, history and Scriptures ours. You want to hold to your personal belief, you are free to choose - but when you declare yourself an authority over others - then you open yourself to be challenged.

Neither side can “prove” their position in the sense of 100% evidence and fact. You believe you have shown your side, and I’ve shown some of mine. The difference is that I’m in “your” house. I’m a guest here and have rightly imposed limits on me and what I can share and state, and try to prove. I don’t declare myself an authority, quite the opposite. Everything I say should be checked against scripture and each believer needs to be prayed and studied up, hearkening to the Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve changed your example there.

Re: the mad anti-Paul people, surely you can see that it’s possible to assert that their text-critical methods are legitimate, but their conclusions are erroneous? That’s in no way contradictory or denying others what one allows one’s self.

If someone, anyone, (please???) could let me know what, exactly this nebulous concept of “text crit” is, then perhaps we could discuss further.

Right now I think it’s something that was made up for the sake of CAFs dialogue. I don’t think anyone here has used it to discern, apart from the authority of the Catholic Church, that James is theopneustos but the didache is not.

But I am willing to retract my assertion that no one here has applied “text crit” to the 27 book canon if she can tell me exactly what the “text crit” that she applied is, and how it would include 3 John, Hebrews, and James while excluding the other 400 ancient Christian texts.

 

[SteveVH]

There is only one Holy Spirit, PR’.

Only one Spirit, PR, only one. There are plenty of humans to muck up doctrine, including those running the RCC/ECC/OC/Protestant denoms. We have to study to show ourselves approved, as well as working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. When we stand before God to stand behind what we believe, there will be no magisterium to back us up, we are responsible for our beliefs.

Kliska, when Paul spoke of working out his salvation with fear and trembling he wasn’t referring to paging through the Scriptures hoping he was right in his interpretation. He was speaking about the fact that even after accepting Christ, we have the ability to reject him. That is why we must persevere to the end. It is a statement in contradiction to “Once Saved Always Saved”, not one in support of private interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[stewstew03]

There is only one Holy Spirit, PR’.

Only one Spirit, PR, only one. There are plenty of humans to muck up doctrine, including those running the RCC/ECC/OC/Protestant denoms. We have to study to show ourselves approved, as well as working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. When we stand before God to stand behind what we believe, there will be no magisterium to back us up, we are responsible for our beliefs.

We are also responsible for what we teach - you left that part out…

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve studied the doctrine of theTrinity and prayed on it, and find it to be true. I can make a case to anyone who asks because I’ve researched it myself and know it to be accurate.

Well then, case settled.

Kliska, you would not have even known what to study and what to pray for had the dogma of the Trinity not been first given to you by the Catholic Church. You did not pick up the Bible and discern this on your own, I don’t care how much you prayed and studied. It’s pretty easy after it has been defined for you. But this did not come to you as a revelation from God through prayer. It came to you through his Church.

If what you say is true then all we really need is you. We should send all of our questions to Kliska so that she can study and pray on it and then give us the correct answer. If this doesn’t work for us then it doesn’t work for you either.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, when Paul spoke of working out his salvation with fear and trembling he wasn’t referring to paging through the Scriptures hoping he was right in his interpretation. He was speaking about the fact that even after accepting Christ, we have the ability to reject him. That is why we must persevere to the end. It is a statement in contradiction to “Once Saved Always Saved”, not one in support of private interpretation of the Scriptures.

Obviously we disagree on this, as it is tied in with what we each believe constitutes salvation. If you read the context there are several things apparent; the unity Paul pushes for is based upon Jesus Christ; His obedience, His faith, and the teaching of the gospel. This is what we are to be focused on and treating each other as brothers and sisters, again underscoring loving one another and holding true to the gospel message. The idea of fear and trembling underscores that we can’t be just told what is right, we are responsible for it, each of us.

Paul, again, elsewhere praises those who search and study diligently for themselves searching to make sure what is communicated to them is truth. The “problem” is when we talk about these issues, there are foundational level differences in how we believe we arrive at the truth.

 

[Kliska]

We are also responsible for what we teach - you left that part out…

No, I’ve said that repeatedly. We each, as individuals, will answer for what we taught others.

Well then, case settled.

For me, it is.

Kliska, you would not have even known what to study and what to pray for had the dogma of the Trinity not been first given to you by the Catholic Church. You did not pick up the Bible and discern this on your own, I don’t care how much you prayed and studied. It’s pretty easy after it has been defined for you. But this did not come to you as a revelation from God through prayer. It came to you through his Church.

Of course you have to believe that. However, I disagree. This is you saying that someone can’t find the concept that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God and God is One in scripture. It’s a strange statement for you to make, because I can do that quite easily, add in the help of the Holy Spirit and there you go.

If what you say is true then all we really need is you. We should send all of our questions to Kliska so that she can study and pray on it and then give us the correct answer. If this doesn’t work for us then it doesn’t work for you either.

This is the hyperbole level straw man you have to resort to because you have no other answer. What you need is the Holy Spirit and the word of God, I’ve said repeatedly ANYthing someone is teaching you of a spiritual nature, including me, should be checked against scripture. Once more with feeling; SS doesn’t write off teachings of anyone in the Early Church or other preachers and teachers, but it does demand we check what they are saying against scripture so that we can know what they are saying is true or not. It doesn’t discount oral teaching or preaching. It doesn’t discount tradition as tradition.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11523475]So what verse in Scripture contradicts the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome?

And here I thought you already knew that

It’s actually combined in several:

1. Mt. 16:18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Mt. 28:16-20 "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost**.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded **you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

But this one’s MY favorite: John 17:14-20
“I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.GOD CAN’T DENY HIS OWN PRAYER REQUEST Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.THIS MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAY’S:CHRIST TRNASFERES TO THE APOSTLES AND THROUGH THEM TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHIRCH HIS VERY OWN POWERS AND AUTHORITY; REPEATED IN JN.20:19-23 [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.HERE JESUS GIVES HIMSELF AS PERSONAL WARRANTY OF INFALLIBILITY WHEN TEACHING ON FAITH AND MORALS [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”

So there ya go my friend! THANKS for asking,
Patrick

 

[bubbawanda]

Yes, you do.

You bristle when the magisterium tells you, “You are in error”.

But reserve for yourself the right to tell others, “You are in error.”

And now, with my psychic powers, I am going to predict that someone here is going to bow out of the discussion with something like, “Thank you very much. But I have nothing more to say here!”.

You’re right. You have psychic powers and I wish to stay out of the way so I don’t get run over. If you are asking questions of someone from another religion chances are pretty good they’re not going to get it right. The tazer approach will discourage me from responding to future questions.
I dont have a beef with the Catholic Church or I wouldnt be here. The Catholic world is vast and im sure I will never see all of it. But coming here is the best glimpse of this world that ive seen outside of church.

 

[stewstew03]

No, I’ve said that repeatedly. We each, as individuals, will answer for what we taught others.

For me, it is.

Of course you have to believe that. However, I disagree. This is you saying that someone can’t find the concept that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God and God is One in scripture. It’s a strange statement for you to make, because I can do that quite easily, add in the help of the Holy Spirit and there you go.

This is the hyperbole level straw man you have to resort to because you have no other answer. What you need is the Holy Spirit and the word of God, I’ve said repeatedly ANYthing someone is teaching you of a spiritual nature, including me, should be checked against scripture. Once more with feeling; SS doesn’t write off teachings of anyone in the Early Church or other preachers and teachers, but it does demand we check what they are saying against scripture so that we can know what they are saying is true or not. It doesn’t discount oral teaching or preaching. It doesn’t discount tradition as tradition.

And how do we test against scripture? Oh, that’s right - we have to pray and study the text. How do we know we have the “right” canon? Well we simply read through hundreds of letters and texts. How do we know we have authentic copies of letters and texts? Oh, we pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us as to which publishing houses and translators got it right. Then, once we are certain that we have done enough research, have prayed enough, and have trusted various publishers/translators, then we dive in to our newly created canon and find the doctrines that we believe are divinely inspired…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well then, case settled.

Kliska, you would not have even known what to study and what to pray for had the dogma of the Trinity not been first given to you by the Catholic Church. You did not pick up the Bible and discern this on your own, I don’t care how much you prayed and studied. It’s pretty easy after it has been defined for you. But this did not come to you as a revelation from God through prayer. It came to you through his Church.

If what you say is true then all we really need is you. We should send all of our questions to Kliska so that she can study and pray on it and then give us the correct answer. If this doesn’t work for us then it doesn’t work for you either.

Right.

Once you know what you are looking for, it’s easy to find it.

Now I’d like to know how Clement I, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and others didn’t make the cut into the NT.

 

[pocohombre]

Poco,

Scripture Alone doesn’t do it.

We must follow Christ to have eternal life.

Amen and Amen !

 

[Porknpie]

I didn’t trust it just because someone told me to trust it. Just like Cardinal Cajetan didn’t. As I’ve stated elsewhere (and been called a liar for it), I have delved into which books I personally believe to be inspired. You can double check it too.

Kliska, I have no way of knowing what is inspired and inerrant without the guidance of the Church. Personal beliefs are not infallible. Quite the opposite.

The other point, is that there has never been one agreed upon canon in Christendom.

never? From 382 onward, the Church determined the number to be 73. The Orthodox hold to the same 73 plus a few more so if you believe the number to be less than 73, then your personal opinion contradicts 1,600 years of Christendom.

The point is that we ALL agree that there are now writings that are indeed scripture; inspired by God, and the word of God. We can use them just as the Bereans did, and yes, that includes the OT.

so how do you know that the Book of Revelation is inspired?

 

[Porknpie]

If that were true, or the Holy Spirit directs me to this idea, then I’d be Roman Catholic. In short, we disagree.

Ok Kliska, show me a scripture verse that contradicts Catholic doctrine.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, and Mary is still flesh and bone.

The Ark carried the Divine. The Ark was NOT divine, poco.

** As such, the Ark references Mary, not Christ. **

But what the Ark carried: the Word, the Bread, the Rod–all references to Christ.

You have misunderstood your metaphors.

Maybe. Not sure there is a differentiation between what was inside and the Ark itself. That is, I think at the end it was the “Ark” that represented " Divine Presence, not just the contents. Hence the metaphor of the Ark as 'Emanuel", God with us. I really think so. Come on, it’s Christmas /Advent. Don’t be a humbug.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, I have no way of knowing what is inspired and inerrant without the guidance of the Church. Personal beliefs are not infallible. Quite the opposite.

That’s where we would say without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You believe that there is a group of humans guided by the Holy Spirit, the magisterium and the Pope. I believe that each believer is guided. Your belief just moves the piece one notch away from yourself, as you say personal beliefs are fallible yet you believe the personal beliefs of another group of humans.

never? From 382 onward, the Church determined the number to be 73. The Orthodox hold to the same 73 plus a few more so if you believe the number to be less than 73, then your personal opinion contradicts 1,600 years of Christendom.

Again, you just admitted that the Orthodox don’t have the same canon, and others can correct me if I’m wrong, even amongst the Orthodox there are slight differences. I’m not just a protestant raising up a concern that has never been raised, or an opinion new to the RCC itself; look up Cardinal Cajetan. Obviously Luther had his thoughts as well.

so how do you know that the Book of Revelation is inspired?

You can find the guidelines used by your church if you want to see how they decided Revelation was inspired. Check them and see if you agree with it. You can also look up scholars’ who have asked the same question.