Seriously, can you show me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damascus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlegreFe said:
That’s a lot of threads to read. So far I’ve read the first 3 links/threads you have in your post and not one even talks about sola fide or sola scriptura. The first thread is about the C of E. And there’s no argument about sola anything. The same thing with the other two. There are only a few bible verses but nothing about sola anything.

Did you just do a search and put certain key words and didn’t bother to read the threads?
Click to expand...
Damascus asked in the OP as follows:

“I have looked and looked for even one thread on this forum where a bible alone faith has had a compelling argument for their position on this forum.
Never saw one.”

Yes, I’ve read the threads I posted. I participated in most, if not all of them. Most of them are not about sola scriptura or sola fide, but they do have intelligent and thoughtful discussion from Protestants about their faith…which seems to be what Damascus was inquiring about in the OP. As I mentioned before, if you read them you may come away with a deeper understanding of some of the issues from viewpoint of various Protestant posters in these forums…and probably a better appreciation of our differences.
 
This is what The Lord has lead me to see.
The Holy Church IS one and has never been broken by “rebellion”, all Catholics and Protestants who accept the Trinity and the Christ Jesus is Our Lord and the Son of God as well as the fact that the cross is the only way to salvation are members of the same church whether they see it or not…
Sometimes Satan leads people to believe that the many branches of God’s Holy Church are seperate churches in themselves.
This is not so.
WP
 
Many people are so biased against the Catholic Church that SS is the only way they can handle Christianity. Most Protestants, excluding some that post here, are fed so much misinformation about Catholics that their mindset is prejudiced.

We see their posts frequently. They drop in for a post or two to straighten us out, declare that their chuch is the most like the original church established by Jesus, then they are overwhelmed with Catholic responses. Then they’re gone.

So how different from Catholic is SS? How are Catholic moral teachings different from the most similar SS moral teachings?
 
sandmountainsli said:
This is what The Lord has lead me to see.
The Holy Church IS one and has never been broken by “rebellion”, all Catholics and Protestants who accept the Trinity and the Christ Jesus is Our Lord and the Son of God as well as the fact that the cross is the only way to salvation are members of the same church whether they see it or not…
Sometimes Satan leads people to believe that the many branches of God’s Holy Church are seperate churches in themselves.
This is not so.
WP
Click to expand...
But you are correct!

Those that are not Catholics have just as much right if not more right to salvation!

You misunderstood me. The Catholic Church does not teach that only Catholics are saved!

I am not questioning that as I believe many Protestants are in a much better place than I am or will be.

I think we understand each other, yet are somehow getting bogged down into words here. IMHO.

I am not nor have I ever stated that a Protestant is less than in terms of salvation, I am not getting my point across well here I see.

Salvation is not my “problem” here.

I am looking for convincing arguments to say that the Catholic Church has gone off the rails and has gone apostate.

That is all.

You have NO argument from me on salvation.

I have NO assurance of it in my mind. None.

lets get that straight!:o
 
I have never really considered the CC to be truly Apostate.
I reserve that title for those churches who appoint women and homosexuals to the ministry, I shan’t mention their names;)
WP
 
sandmountainsli said:
I have never really considered the CC to be truly Apostate.
I reserve that title for those churches who appoint women and homosexuals to the ministry, I shan’t mention their names;)
WP
Click to expand...
I am so glad we understand each other better now!🙂

I apologize if my posts did not reflect that properly!:o

The only faiths I have a “problem” with are the bible alone faiths that claim they use bible alone because…

See my point?
 
rr1213 said:
Damascus asked in the OP as follows:

"I have looked and looked for even one thread on this forum where a bible alone faith has had a compelling argument for their position on this forum.
Never saw one."

Yes, I’ve read the threads I posted. I participated in most, if not all of them. Most of them are not about sola scriptura or sola fide, but they do have intelligent and thoughtful discussion from Protestants about their faith…which seems to be what Damascus was inquiring about in the OP. As I mentioned before, if you read them you may come away with a deeper understanding of some of the issues from viewpoint of various Protestant posters in these forums…and probably a better appreciation of our differences.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you here. Not one of those seemed “intelligent” to me. But that’s beside the point. He asked about bible alone and faith alone, not all of that.

This to me proves that even you don’t have compelling evidence of sola anything.

I hope one day the scales will fall of your eyes so that you can see the Truths of the Catholic faith. I pray for you. :gopray:
 
AlegreFe said:
I disagree with you here. Not one of those seemed “intelligent” to me. But that’s beside the point. He asked about bible alone and faith alone, not all of that.

This to me proves that even you don’t have compelling evidence of sola anything.

I hope one day the scales will fall of your eyes so that you can see the Truths of the Catholic faith. I pray for you. :gopray:
Click to expand...
Ok, I’m done here.
 
It was wrong of me to place the RCC alongside those other false religions to make a point about extra-biblical doctrine.
The RCC does have the correct doctrine about Who Jesus is as our Redeemer, and anyone who truly believes in the Gospel is a member of Christ’s Church.

I can not go along with the RCC’s additional doctrine though.

The gospel of Christ is " the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth". (Romans 1:16) Some seem to want to substitute other requirements for salvation, but the simple Gospel is adequate according to the Bible.

Paul explains that " In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my (Paul’s presentation of) gospel." (Romans 2:16)
I don’t see the Divine Judge Jesus using any additional doctrine here to judge us. Paul’s was good enough.

Anyone presenting additional requirements for salvation is in conflict with God’s Word here.

Yeah Demascus, you can put me down as one of those who has no problem with Faith or Bible ALONE.
 
I have looked and looked for even one thread on this forum where a bible alone faith has had a compelling argument for their position on this forum.
Click to expand...
Mr. Ex Nihilo and I had an interesting discussion on sola scriptura awhile back, but unfortunately it was lost in the fourm crash. I don’t know if he was ever able to recover any of it. Try asking him. 😉

Even so I don’t suppose it counts exactly, because my definition of “the Bible Alone” is not what so many here seem to define it as.
 
My use of (John 6:68) to prove that Christ’s Words are the “words of eternal life” is not out of context as some claim.

The Catholic response is that Peter was only agreeing with Jesus’ declaration of our need to “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”.
The question I put back to the faulty response is: How could Peter agree with something that he did not understand, which also was against all of his beliefs about cannibalism etc.?
Peter had not experienced the Last Supper yet and none of the apostles could even comprehend Jesus statements that He must be killed, which is part of that same Eucharist.

Peter’s use of the phrase “thou hast the words of eternal life” is really a shorthand version of the next verse: “And we believe that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (which is the Gospel of Salvation). If you recall, Jesus commended Peter as a “rock” for that very same statement before.
Peter was confirming that he knew that all of Jesus’ words were true, in spite of the difficulty he was having understanding all of it at that time. (Saving Faith)

My conclusion is that the claim that Peter was only agreeing with the"eating my flesh and blood" is illogical.
I was not out of context here.
 
brkn1 said:
I can not go along with the RCC’s additional doctrine though.
Click to expand...
All Catholic doctrine is perfectly compatible with all Bible. Sacred Tradition teaches as well as Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition is TAUGHT by Sacred Scripture. I believe you are insisting on having your own opinions with regard to your faith, rather than humbly accepting God’s opinion with regard to the nature of His Church.

The faith practiced by the Apostles and early Christians, long before denominationalism arose some 1500 years later, was Catholic. This can be seen from history. Anyone who believes that the Church was practicing false religion during those 1500 years, is in the same theological camp as the Mormons and other cults who teach much the same thing.

Mary, Confession/Reconciliation, Transubstantiation, the communion of saints, Sacred Liturgy, etc: These are part and parcel of True Christianity. If you don’t have these things in your faith life, then you are losing out on some pretty important stuff!
 
JohnWilliams said:
After confession, does a Priest indicate to you that you are “back in” in any fashion?
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, I just went to confession last night. Last night I confessed to some rather serious things that I did years ago which I forgot to include in previous confessions but which were recalled to my mind over the past few days. These had already been forgiven, because the absolution applies to all sins, even those not specifically recalled at the moment of confession. We still have an obligation to confess these in a subsequent confession, even though forgiveness has already been obtained for them. As a general rule, the priest pronounces forgiveness for sins. I don’t recall ever hearing any priest tell me I’m “back in” whatever that means.
 
rr1213 said:
There have been plenty of discussions in these forums over the last few months where the Protestant position has been compelling, but both of you come from a Catholic perspective which is why those arguments have not seemed convincing to you. The same sort of mentality is why Catholic arguments are often not convincing to Protestants.
Click to expand...
Catholic arguments were very convincing to this former protestant. 😃
 
Allweather said:
Last night I confessed to some rather serious things that I did years ago which I forgot to include in previous confessions but which were recalled to my mind over the past few days. These had already been forgiven, because the absolution applies to all sins, even those not specifically recalled at the moment of confession. We still have an obligation to confess these in a subsequent confession, even though forgiveness has already been obtained for them.
Click to expand...
If you consciously do not comply with the obligation to confess the remembered sins in a subsequent confession, is this failure in and of itself an additional sin? If so, venial or mortal?
 
rr1213 said:
If you consciously do not comply with the obligation to confess the remembered sins in a subsequent confession, is this failure in and of itself an additional sin? If so, venial or mortal?
Click to expand...
If anyone does not consciously comply with any of Christ’s teachings where do you think that will get them?:rolleyes:
 
JohnWilliams said:
A good read for you would be “Peace Child” by Don Richardson, that might help you understand just what the legs on the stool are.
amazon.com/Peace-Child-Don-Richardson/dp/0830704159
Click to expand...
I know very well what the three legs of the stool are.

**

  1. *]Sacred Scripture
    *]Sacred Tradition
    *]Magisterial Teaching - Magisterium of The Catholic Church

    **

    In the case of Protestantism there are only two legs;

    **

    1. *]Sacred Scripture Alone
      *]Faith Alone

      **
      Which in this case is really only one since Sacred Scripture seems to be the only one left from the original legs of the stool.
 
JohnWilliams said:
After confession, does a Priest indicate to you that you are “back in” in any fashion?
Click to expand...
Not in so many words. But we are certainly “alive again” as we are reconciled to Jesus Christ again because we have repented of our sins.

Since sin breaks the bond of our relationship to God, we have to come to be reconciled to Him again. These are the words of absolution given in the Sacrament of Confession;

“God the Father of mercies has reconciled the world to
Himself through the death and resurrection of His Son, and
has poured forth the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins. -------> see verses below
May He grant you pardon and peace through the ministry of
the Church. And I absolve you from your sins in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

John 20:19-23 (ESV)
19 On the evening of that day, the
first day of the week, the doors
being locked where the disciples
were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came
and stood among them and said to
them, “Peace be with you.
20 When he had said this, he showed
them his hands and his side. Then the
disciples were glad when they saw the
Lord.
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace
be with you. As the Father has sent me,
even so I am sending you.
22 And when he had said this, he
breathed on them and said to them,
“Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of anyone,
they are forgiven; if you withhold
forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”

This is enough for me to indicate that I am “back in” as you put it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top