since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[Cathoholic]

benhur:

I feel there sins were forgiven by the speech, or were converted by it, born of the spirit. for faith cometh by hearing . They then gladly were water baptized.

OK? I didn’t realize you really think that the “speech” saved them:shrug:. I guess I was wrong. You DO think that.

I think it was just like as the Scriptures say:

**
“Repent and be baptized . . . . and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”**

ACTS 2:22a, 38 22 "Men of Israel, hear these words . . . 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Interesting. You are the sola Scriptura person. I am not.

You are saying something DIFFERENT than what the Scriptures say. I am not.

This difference in interpretation in and of itself is useful for yet again showing how . . . .

. . . . Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, the makes void the Commandments of God.

 

[Magdalena59]

Again most of us have a congregation where we can seek help with disputes, transgressions. Most of us would say the church we are in is the church the Lord has given us, placed us in. Again most Catholics, like the rest of us, probably go to our presbyter/priest when in conflict with a fellow parishioner/brethren. Some then might go to a bishop. Some churches even have a centralized office/authority, like your pope, for rare cases.
Agreed. “My people perish for lack of knowledge”. In the new testament He writes the Laws on our heart . Indeed the church institution must put forth the gospel of salvation IN Jesus.

God bless

I am sorry Ben. I think I am not wording myself very well. My bad. I see your point and agree :yup:as far as different congregants being able to go to their pastor if there are issues but what I mean is bigger.

An example of what I mean would be such as what I, while a protestant, saw in a couple of small towns where I live. We have had over the last 20 years 4 churches either divide, move or close over scripture disputes. It is usually a pastor and associate pastor disagreeing and then half of the congregation goes with one and the other half follow the other or like one in particular, the church had divided so many times there wasn’t enough congregation left to follow anyone. The pastor quit and the church closed down. Another pastor and board members of another church argued so much over Biblical doctrine, the congregants slowly just all left. Both churches are now used for daycares.

The other main one in our area was a large protestant church. When asked why they were arguing and some parishioners were going one way with the associate pastor, the answer was because he was following the Bible and the pastor wasn’t. If you asked those following the pastor you would get a similar answer regarding the associate pastor.

For me as a protestant at the time, it was very disconcerting. Another example of a terrible divide was when the Schuller’s disputed and it was the end of the Crystal Cathedral. For many years I had enjoyed their preaching and was very bothered when I learned that father and son could not agree on theology. Of course there were other issues also.

In contrast, there are, in our same area are two Catholic churches that have been there since the 1800’s. They were actually built by the ones who had settle the land. Interesting the doctrine, teaching, scripture interpretation has never changed. That was because there was an authority greater than them that God had given them to interpret scripture and just like Jesus is the same, yesterday and today, so are his teachings. His teachings He left for us, found in the Catholic church. People have not liked what those teachings were and perhaps left but the Catholic church still stands there with the light of Jesus. Many return as I did, after many years.

That is what I mean when I ask, when you look for that gift that Jesus Our Lord gave to us, to show us what truth is and what His beautiful Word means and how do we love, follow and obey Jesus correctly, where do you go? When it becomes the issue of your salvation or of a loved one that you are responsible for and that you do not want to steer down the wrong path, you search for the truth and you want to be sure it is not just partly true but fully true, so you ask Jesus for guidance and Our Precious Lord Jesus leads you to His beautiful Church.

God bless.

 

[benhur]

Please don’t misunderstand my question:
Is this a self-referential approach? (please, I am not saying selfish).
It seems to center God’s revelation on the disposition of the self, rather than on Christ’s objectively existing community.

You seem to be saying that because your congregation is where you are, God’s will has conformed to your circumstances.

I acknowledge with gratitude that I am born into a Catholic family culture. If I were born in China, I might be Buddhist and I could still be grateful. While I should be grateful in any circumstance for my present condition, I cannot say that God has conformed his wishes to my condition.

I think the question posed to me was in reference to the scriptures of Mat 18:16-18 where a transgression brother is finally taken to the church for correction. In that regard I answered. Many think that applies to doctrinal disputes ,and I would disagree. never the less I think I answered what we generally do with that also.it is not like the CC is the only church with a teaching authority.

As far as your latter point I think I stated that Christ puts us where we are . He calls us out thru the eclesia and more, and places us in the ecclesiia, which means , "those who are called out’’, which we call “church” or the Body of Christ’’.

Generally the ecclesia/community that has “birthed” us is where we are first drawn to. Not sure God conforms to the newborn, but rather the newborn desires to conform to the Christ and ecclesia/community that brought him to life.

Clem, I guess I would need help to understand what you are getting at. I think I cover of course the individual, and Christ, and the community/church. Do not see over emphasis on self.

Agree, that God does not conform to our circumstance if we are not rebirthed , or are a Buddhist.

 

[benhur]

I am sorry Ben. I think I am not wording myself very well. My bad. I see your point and agree :yup:as far as different congregants being able to go to their pastor if there are issues but what I mean is bigger.

An example of what I mean would be such as what I, while a protestant, saw in a couple of small towns where I live. We have had over the last 20 years 4 churches either divide, move or close over scripture disputes. It is usually a pastor and associate pastor disagreeing and then half of the congregation goes with one and the other half follow the other or like one in particular, the church had divided so many times there wasn’t enough congregation left to follow anyone. The pastor quit and the church closed down. Another pastor and board members of another church argued so much over Biblical doctrine, the congregants slowly just all left. Both churches are now used for daycares.

The other main one in our area was a large protestant church. When asked why they were arguing and some parishioners were going one way with the associate pastor, the answer was because he was following the Bible and the pastor wasn’t. If you asked those following the pastor you would get a similar answer regarding the associate pastor.

For me as a protestant at the time, it was very disconcerting. Another example of a terrible divide was when the Schuller’s disputed and it was the end of the Crystal Cathedral. For many years I had enjoyed their preaching and was very bothered when I learned that father and son could not agree on theology. Of course there were other issues also.

In contrast, there are, in our same area are two Catholic churches that have been there since the 1800’s. They were actually built by the ones who had settle the land. Interesting the doctrine, teaching, scripture interpretation has never changed. That was because there was an authority greater than them that God had given them to interpret scripture and just like Jesus is the same, yesterday and today, so are his teachings. His teachings He left for us, found in the Catholic church. People have not liked what those teachings were and perhaps left but the Catholic church still stands there with the light of Jesus. Many return as I did, after many years.

That is what I mean when I ask, when you look for that gift that Jesus Our Lord gave to us, to show us what truth is and what His beautiful Word means and how do we love, follow and obey Jesus correctly, where do you go? When it becomes the issue of your salvation or of a loved one that you are responsible for and that you do not want to steer down the wrong path, you search for the truth and you want to be sure it is not just partly true but fully true, so you ask Jesus for guidance and Our Precious Lord Jesus leads you to His beautiful Church.

God bless.

Thanks for asking and sharing. Let’s go for all the marbles, the biggy, salvation of a loved one , or anyone for that matter that you rightly bring up.

I really believe that in heaven there are no Catholics, no Orthodox , nor Baptists or Anglicans etc. They do not go by those names . Admittance is based not on which church baptized you, or that you belonged to, but on being washed by the Blood of the Lamb.

That churches split or don’t split, change a lot or not at all, the real question is , do you hear the gospel from their pulpit, from their community ?

Sorry you saw such division. Sin is ugly and God only knows if indeed a newborn or weaker brethren fell from perseverance.

For sure the CC is free from those splits for the most part. Mainline protestant churches are more stable and careful with appointments. The independents are more susceptible to such problems.

From my experience there are those who stress their church where you can find Christ and those that stress finding Christ first who puts you in His church.

The danger of a nice, established,strong church (or any church) is that one can think that being part of it makes you a Christian. Kind of like hanging out in a garage makes you a car. Remember, the one true religion, the pillar of truth in the OT, Judaism, had circumcised, bar mitzvahed rabbi who were not regenerated, not born of the spirit, though very, very religious and passionate ( like Nicodemus).

Blessings Magdalena

 

[benhur]

benhur:

OK? I didn’t realize you really think that the “speech” saved them:shrug:. I guess I was wrong. You DO think that.

I think it was just like as the Scriptures say:

ACTS 2:22a, 38 22 "Men of Israel, hear these words . . . 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Interesting. You are the sola Scriptura person. I am not.

You are saying something DIFFERENT than what the Scriptures say. I am not.

This difference in interpretation in and of itself is useful for yet again showing how . . . .

. . . . Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, the makes void the Commandments of God.

Sorry Holic, one more rift. I do not think baptism saves you . I believe one is baptized because they are already saved, had a change in heart, have been born of the spirit (original sin washed, by the Word). Faith saves. Faith is a gift . Your hear about it and receive it. Baptism doe not give you saving faith. In fact any good priest will not baptize you without the participant already having saving faith . Then the question is can you have saving faith without “rebirth” ? and then can you have rebirth whilst still with original sin?

We might be close if you think being saved is a process with many evidences, even works. Why not just say it happens in the heart first upon hearing and not at baptism? You already have many points, stations of salvation, why not just add one more, at the beginning, just before baptism? There are scriptures for that, and it does not negate Peter’s admonition.

 

[Magdalena59]

Thanks for asking and sharing. Let’s go for all the marbles, the biggy, salvation of a loved one , or anyone for that matter that you rightly bring up.

I really believe that in heaven there are no Catholics, no Orthodox , nor Baptists or Anglicans etc. They do not go by those names . Admittance is based not on which church baptized you, or that you belonged to, but on being washed by the Blood of the Lamb.

Agreed. The question lies then in how do you get washed by the Blood of the Lamb. After reading some of your posts, I have noticed you start many of your statements with, I believe or I think. One can believe something is true when it isn’t. They can believe it with all their might but it will never make it true.

One can fully believe they are saved when they are not and that is a dangerous place to be.

The danger of a nice, established,strong church (or any church) is that one can think that being part of it makes you a Christian. Kind of like hanging out in a garage makes you a car. Remember, the one true religion, the pillar of truth in the OT, Judaism, had circumcised, bar mitzvahed rabbi who were not regenerated, not born of the spirit, though very, very religious and passionate ( like Nicodemus).

It is not just about being a part of it. It is about loving it and loving the person who gifted it to us. It is about the person of Jesus who is found there, who calls us and welcomes us to come and be with Him there. Hebrews 12:22

I have heard the example of the car in the garage many times. The problem with that is that it usually is insinuating that the person who belongs to the Church, and who is very religious and passionate about his religion isn’t a Christian because he has religion instead of a relationship. I think you would agree that a person can have a relationship and still be very religious. In fact, it is that relationship that leads one to be passionate about their religion.

Isn’t that how a relationship should work. Shouldn’t we as Christians be so in love with Christ that we keep his commandments and seek to know those commandments. Isn’t that what he asked of us in John 14:15?

 

[benhur]

So what does ex cathedra mean to you?

To me it is as defined as such “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent)

I bolded the one item above to illustrate that it is not about adding or taking away from Scripture.

I guess my point is that the Catholic Church gets accused of adding and taking away from Scripture so much, yet some non-Catholic faiths do the same to fit their view of theology. Take for example OSAS, the faith traditions that preach this say that it can be derived for Scripture, yet when the Catholic Church proclaims the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother we get accused of adding to Scripture.

the “It’s OK for me to “add” or define doctrine based on Scripture but not for you” type of arguments that leads to a double standard. I am not saying that this is the case in every discussion; I am only directing my thoughts about this towards to the ones who do “add” to Scripture by putting forth something that is not “specifically” by exact words spelled out in Scripture and then attack the Catholic Church for Her doctrines and accuse Her of adding to Scripture.

Sorry but meant no double standard . I am very happy to call every man a liar, or every church with “problems” and only God is true. In fact just a few posts before this I was careful to say P’s have similar problem that C’s have.

Right now I think stem cell research is not clear cut (unless you mean embryonic) and thus we should not proclaim doctrine on it yet.

My point was in not justifying Church being the final norm instead of scripture, even insisting on both, over these rare instances.

The only way then that Tradition does not add to scripture is when one has Writ as final norm . That is , the new declared doctrine is scriptural after all.

It seems you don’t mind the adding,defining, just want it two ways .OK

What makes it a stronger “adding” is when a church, any church, declares the defined doctrine as binding, as an article of faith that must be believed, to be in full communion. So for example the IC was declared binding as God breathed in 1800’s. At that point it was to be adhered to . before that it was not binding. That is the context of “adding”.

Yes, the same can be said for OSAS, SS etc, just not sure that it was as strict a requirement as Catholics , possibly making it a qualified type of adding. Not sure.

 

[Abu]

benhur #680
My point was in not justifying Church being the final norm instead of scripture, even insisting on both, over these rare instances.

The mistaken triumph of the self in the refusal to follow the Christ could hardly be clearer – the Scriptures themselves, written by Christ’s chosen ones, as Jesus wrote nothing, irrefutably declare Christ Himself establishing His Church through His own Words:
**All four promises to Peter alone first, and sole authority to St Peter **(Post #131).

It is precisely and only because of His Church that we have the Sacred Scriptures, which only She can declare, and has declared, as the Word of God.

That is benhur’s first grave error, and that of many – hence the confusion and false ideas.

The only way then that Tradition does not add to scripture is when one has Writ as final norm . That is , the new declared doctrine is scriptural after all.

This is the second grave error – which is precisely why monstrosities like euthanasia, IVF, cloning and other perversions are not, and cannot be, identified as gravely evil actions without the commanding condemnation which only Christ’s Church can pronounce, because the Sacred Scriptures declare and define Christ’s foundation of His Church for precisely that purpose encompassed by Her teaching, sanctifying and ruling.

It is high time to follow Christ through His Church.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur stated:

Sorry Holic, one more rift. I do not think baptism saves you . I believe one is baptized because they are already saved, had a change in heart, have been born of the spirit (original sin washed, by the Word). Faith saves. Faith is a gift . Your hear about it and receive it. Baptism doe not give you saving faith. In fact any good priest will not baptize you without the participant already having saving faith .

You’re wrong benhur.

Benhur said:

Sorry Holic, one more rift. I do not think baptism saves you .

(Lets review with emphasis mine)

Excerpt from ACTS 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins;
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1st CORINTHIANS 12:13 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body . . .

ROMANS 6:4a 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism

Excerpt from 1st PETER 3:21 21 Baptism, . . . now saves you . . .

BENHUR I do not think baptism saves you .

Draw your own conclusions.

This is “Exhibit A” why sola Scriptura doesn’t work.

---

Benhur. You also said:

I believe one is baptized because they are already saved, had a change in heart,

This is a partial truth benhur. The answer to this goes hand in hand with the next point.

Why not just say it happens in the heart first upon hearing and not at baptism? . . . Because that is .

Because that is called God’s prevenient grace (“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, . . . they are called”–Trent Chap. 5 Dec. on Justification). That is different than saving grace.

What Is God’s Prevenient Grace?

God’s prevenient grace is where God calls us, God makes the first move. God initially draws the sinner to Himself. We love, because He FIRST loved us (see 1st John 4:19).

God’s prevenient grace is NOT an area of contention between Catholics and Protestants Benhur.

Semi-Pelagians think they can make the “first move” toward God, not Christians.

I am not saying YOU think you can make the first move toward God. I am saying you are getting God’s prevenient grace conflated with God’s saving grace and this has consequences when taken to its logical conclusion.

God’s prevenient grace is not the same as God’s prevenient grace. Protestants know that too. That’s why they (many) will say you still must “accept Jesus into your heart”.

Faith saves. Faith is a gift . Your hear about it and receive it. Baptism doe not give you saving faith. In fact any good priest will not baptize you without the participant already having saving faith .

This is also a partial truth benhur.

Talking about adults who get born again (or born of water and the Spirit) yes they must “Believe” and be baptized. But this “belief” is merely a natural belief, not a supernaturalized faith. The natural gift is part of God’s prevenient grace and is necessary to be sure. But in Baptism we receive MORE.

The supernatural part Jesus also authors in a differing but special way (He is the “author and finisher of our faith”) when we are baptized (or born again, or born of water and the Spirit).

Jesus did not offer this supernatural gift to mankind as a whole before Calvary.

Listen to St. John talk about a natural and a supernatural faith (coincidentally enough, just before telling Nicodemus he must be born again or “born of water and the Spirit”).

JOHN 2:23-25 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not trust (episteuen) himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

As Scott Hahn discusses, the root of episteuen in John 2:24 is “faith” or “belief”.
Literally: Jesus did NOT FAITH himself to them (to guys who ALREADY “believed” in His name).

Let’s look again at John 2:23-25 with “faith” plugged in for episteuen.

JOHN 2:23-25 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not FAITH himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

The CCC teaches the SAME THING about a natural faith and a supernatural faith.

**Faith is a grace **

CCC 153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’"25

**Faith is a human act **

CCC 154a Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about . . . .

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work Benhur.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur.

You asked Magdalena59 in post 663

Do you need fullness of truth for very single argument ?

Do not O’s and P’s settle some arguments ?

The CC is limited also and does not settle very argument (interpretation) and certainly not right away though claiming fullness of truth.

---

Do you need fullness of truth for very single argument ?

Every single argument does not need to be settled. The authoritative Church that Christ founded will settle a dispute when the Church deems it necessary. That is part of the reason why we need an authoritative Church. Otherwise some would ignore teachings they should not neglect, while others would get torn apart by their pedantics or “hair-splittings” with each other (as I have recently seen in Protestant ecclesial community resulting in a three-way church split in my home area recently).

Do not O’s and P’s settle some arguments ?

Protestants cannot settle arguments in an AUTHORITATIVE manner.
Yes they can have conviviality.
Yes they can persuade one another.
Yes they can “agree to disagree” or decide to have a church split.
But they cannot “settle arguments” with God-given, God-protected authority. And they admit to this.

The Church DOES settle disputes with God-given, God-protected authority. People CAN and do reject it (to their own possible peril), but the Church can and does authoritatively settle disputes (among other things).

**
This is yet another reason why sola Scriptura must be a tradition of men that makes void the Commandments of God.**

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophies that depend on human tradition—philosophies that depend upon human tradition such as sola Scriptura.

(Orthodox cannot settle arguments among fellow-bishops. They may come to agreement, but they cannot authoritatively settle differences with one another. This is the result of leaving the unity of the faith)

 

[wmscott]

Sorry but meant no double standard . I am very happy to call every man a liar, or every church with “problems” and only God is true. In fact just a few posts before this I was careful to say P’s have similar problem that C’s have.

Right now I think stem cell research is not clear cut (unless you mean embryonic) and thus we should not proclaim doctrine on it yet.

My point was in not justifying Church being the final norm instead of scripture, even insisting on both, over these rare instances.

The only way then that Tradition does not add to scripture is when one has Writ as final norm . That is , the new declared doctrine is scriptural after all.

It seems you don’t mind the adding,defining, just want it two ways .OK

What makes it a stronger “adding” is when a church, any church, declares the defined doctrine as binding, as an article of faith that must be believed, to be in full communion. So for example the IC was declared binding as God breathed in 1800’s. At that point it was to be adhered to . before that it was not binding. That is the context of “adding”.

Yes, the same can be said for OSAS, SS etc, just not sure that it was as strict a requirement as Catholics , possibly making it a qualified type of adding. Not sure.

Ben, I may have not been clear in my post. I was not pointing the finger towards you regarding the double standard. My intent was to understand what you understood what ex cathedra meant. I followed on with the rest of the post regarding the double standard.

Since I am not as learned as may here form the Catholic knowledge base, if I am not mistaken the Immaculate Conception was always with the Church early on and believed by the faithful. It only needed to be proclaimed as dogma because of the issues that arose from Protestantism. Please correct me if i am wrong.

 

[benhur]

Ben, I may have not been clear in my post. I was not pointing the finger towards you regarding the double standard. My intent was to understand what you understood what ex cathedra meant. I followed on with the rest of the post regarding the double standard.

Since I am not as learned as may here form the Catholic knowledge base, if I am not mistaken the Immaculate Conception was always with the Church early on and believed by the faithful. It only needed to be proclaimed as dogma because of the issues that arose from Protestantism. Please correct me if i am wrong.

Ok yes i think we are on same page with ex cathedra and teachings on faith and morals even infallibility on such.

First, the CC does use scripture to claim this doctrine and of course tradition, saying it “was from the beginning”.

It had to be dogmatically declared in 1854, possibly first time ex cathedra definition was declared, used but not sure. It had to be declared to settle the matter within Catholicism. There were disputes, especially between Franciscans and Dominicans. St Thomas Aquinas (Dominican) did not believe it. One was free to believe or disbelieve it, until 1854. I do not know the extent of the division (50/50 or/80/20) but for sure many celebrated this feast around 600 ad,

 

[Magdalena59]

…, if I am not mistaken the Immaculate Conception was always with the Church early on and believed by the faithful. It only needed to be proclaimed as dogma because of the issues that arose from Protestantism. Please correct me if i am wrong.

St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350), :

*“Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother.” (Poem to Christ)

And,

"My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.*

 

[benhur]

The mistaken triumph of the self

 

[benhur]

Agreed. The question lies then in how do you get washed by the Blood of the Lamb. After reading some of your posts, I have noticed you start many of your statements with, I believe or I think. One can believe something is true when it isn’t. They can believe it with all their might but it will never make it true.

 

[Magdalena59]

Abu;12786434:

The mistaken triumph of a church’s tradition

for refusal to follow Christ and His writ is the other end of the spectrum. Abu ,that is any church tradition , C P or O etc.It is an authority issue for all churches, not just P’s.

Then you probably agree that you would need to ask yourself which church authority, since outside the Catholic church there is not unity in authority.

Did not know the CC is only church to declare , even fight sin in the world…

It is not the only one. All Christians are called to fight against sin but in order to do that we need to know what is sinful, there needs to be a consensus of what is considered sinful and what is not sinful and the help and need the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, did Christ or the apostles ever get involved with governments , even society ills or rather evils (the poor and sick are "ills’’ but not evil) ?
Amen.

Christ did. One example is the way women were treated, when he visited with the woman at the well. How about the story of the Good Samaritan and the way the Samaritans were being treated. Maybe even just the way he showed the Jewish people the way to solve the problems they were having with the Roman soldiers was through love and humility. I am sure I can come up with more if I was to study on it some.
We can’t know for sure what were all the issues the apostles faced when they were out spreading the Gospel. They very well may have spoken out against society evils.

 

[Magdalena59]

Magdalena59;12786375:

Actually on my last statement I posted ''I really

believe". my version of "verily,verily’’…

There is no Catholic insinuation(except for the fact that there are more things to be religious about in say CC than say a baptist church, (eg lent/advent,saints,candles vigils,prayers), for this challenge is for all churches.This is not just a “Catholic” problem.The tares are in with the wheat in all

churches…

Agreed. It can reference protestants who are religious also. And I agree there are more religious expressions in the Catholic faith. They are very beautiful.

Understand
benhur;12787085:

It is line with our shared Writ that many will have to depart even though they did wonderous works in the name of the Lord.
Amen. But beware of any self righteous attitude , or even saving merit in our works of righteousness, key word saving (reward/merit is reward and not saving).

I think I understand what you are saying here about works. It is usually a misunderstanding of the Catholic faith, though. I didn’t understand for a long time either.
Learning, studying and God’s grace helped me understand. Here are a couple of links I found.

catholic.com/tracts/reward-and-merit

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-does-the-church-teach-that-works-can-obtain-salvation

:compcoff:

 

[Abu]

Magdalena59 #689
You wrote:

Originally Posted by Abu
The mistaken triumph of a church’s tradition for refusal to follow Christ and His writ is the other end of the spectrum. Abu ,that is any church tradition , C P or O etc.It is an authority issue for all churches, not just P’s.

In fact I emphasized “the self” in post #681:
“The mistaken triumph of the self in the refusal to follow the Christ could hardly be clearer – the Scriptures themselves, written by Christ’s chosen ones, as Jesus wrote nothing, irrefutably declare Christ Himself establishing His Church through His own Words:
All four promises to Peter alone first, and sole authority to St Peter (Post #131).”

Thus it is first and foremost that placing of the “self” to pick and choose, and thus whether cafeteria Catholics, or of some other sect, to disrupt the complete message of Christ and that of His Church.

 

[Cathoholic]

Re-reading post 682 (typo by me alert here)

I said:

God’s prevenient grace is not the same as God’s prevenient grace. Protestants know that too. That’s why they (many) will say you still must “accept Jesus into your heart”.

I meant:

God’s prevenient grace is not the same as God’s saving grace. Protestants know that too. That’s why they (many) will say you still must “accept Jesus into your heart”.

Catholics often refer to this “saving grace” as “sanctifying grace”. Protestants frequently call it “amazing grace” or “saving grace”.

 

[Magdalena59]

Magdalena59 #689
You wrote:

In fact I emphasized “the self” in post #681:
“The mistaken triumph of the self in the refusal to follow the Christ could hardly be clearer – the Scriptures themselves, written by Christ’s chosen ones, as Jesus wrote nothing, irrefutably declare Christ Himself establishing His Church through His own Words:
All four promises to Peter alone first, and sole authority to St Peter (Post #131).”

Thus it is first and foremost that placing of the “self” to pick and choose, and thus whether cafeteria Catholics, or of some other sect, to disrupt the complete message of Christ and that of His Church.

I think some of the quote markings got off back there. I was trying to support your statement and respond to benhur.

Sorry about that.