The Essentials of CARM

[Atemi]

Then since you obviously have no problem promoting discrimination under the guise of “freedom of speech” why do you complain if catholics reply to protestants in the same manner?

Double standard?

Yes. A double standard by the very Catholics who complain.

Over on CARM, I do not complain that Catholics are free to express their opinions on non-Catholic faiths. But to hear Catholics lecture others for what they are either guilty of themselves, or consent to, is silliness.

FYI, the WWW is just that, not the united states. You may be surprised that the world wide web isn’t governed by the laws of United States. I would call that egocentrism for sure; arrogant and superior, possibly.

Sigh.

I cannot apologize if I happen to believe that ALL people are created by God to be free.

If that concept is alien to you, I am sorry. That is truly a shame.

…

 

[Atemi]

What is kind of interesting is that CARM’s web site at one time listed a different version of ‘Essentials’. A previous version only listed 3 items when now it lists 4 items. Maybe in a year or two the number of essentials (according to carm) will change again.

How can essentials of salvation change???

Wow.

That is very interesting coming from a Catholic considering that the essentials for salvation change all the time in Catholicism.

Just over 50 years ago it was not essential for Catholics to believe that Mary was Assumed into Heaven. Now it is. The list goes on and on.

How can essentials of salvation change???

…

 

[mikeledes]

It is all about intrpretation. I truly see OSAS as clear as day and can reconcile it with other scriptures that you guys say go against it. So go figure:shrug:

Dont worry though I still 100% believe in doing good deeds:thumbsup: I dont believe I have a liscence to sin.

I think we are off topic though

I’ve never read any of your responses to the verses in question. I would be interested in seeing them. Particularly:

Romans 11:20-22

20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Verse 20 makes it clear that verses 20-22 refer to Gentiles who possess faith (Gentile Chrsitians) and, hence, have been grafted in. If the Israeelites were cut off due to their unbelief, logically only those Gentiles who believe can be grafted in and also cut off.

1 Timothy 3:6

6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the (M)condemnation incurred by the devil.

Note that he says that the new convert incurs the condemnation of the devil to to his becoming conceited. If he never escaped condemnation to begin with, then this would make no sense.

Hebrews 2:1-2
1For this reason we (i.e. inspired author includes himself) must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.
2For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,
3how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

If you chose to respond, you can PM me or write it wherever you wish. If not, I leave it as food for thought and to your conscience.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

Yes. You are obviously better served by only staying where everyone agrees with you.

 

[kell0618]

How can essentials of salvation change???

…

They cannot, have not and will not. Don’t take someone’s word on the teachings of salvation. Look in the Catechism yourself and see what it says about salvation. Then look to the Church Fathers and see what they said about salvation. Lastly, look to the Bible and see what it says about Salvation. Perhaps some of the time you get incomplete information from others, and other times you are closed off to truly hearing the correct information and choose to hear what you wish.

In regard to the Assumption of Mary, because it wasn’t defined as being Dogmatic before does not mean it was not taught in the Church before being declared such by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus. See what St. John of Damascus had to say about Mary’s Assumption.

Dogma does not change though at times it is expanded upon for clarification purposes only; practice can change.

Peace be with you,

Kelly

 

[Nicene]

Sigh.

I cannot apologize if I happen to believe that ALL people are created by God to be free.

If that concept is alien to you, I am sorry. That is truly a shame.

…

And there in lies the problem. You equate freedom of speech, democracy, the constitution etc, with Gods church. In christianity God freed us and we live under the law of liberty. But that law of liberty is not an excuse to sin.

The constitution is not inspired. God didn’t make christianity a democracy, it His “Kingdom”. Sacred scripture is treated as a democracy. Bible alone, my personal interpretation = democracy. It isn’t the democracy of heaven, it is the “Kingdom of heaven.”

God instituted all governments (Romans). Equating the United States with the Kingdom of God is problematic. Read scripture concerning those who do that, it’s in 2 Thess.

God gave us the freedom to follow him not democratically make him into our own image.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Wow.

That is very interesting coming from a Catholic considering that the essentials for salvation change all the time in Catholicism.

Just over 50 years ago it was not essential for Catholics to believe that Mary was Assumed into Heaven. Now it is. The list goes on and on.

How can essentials of salvation change???

…

There are 16 Dogma of the church. As the late great John Harding said often: “To doubt even one received dogma of the Catholic Church is to lose the supernatural virtue of faith.”

The Dogma have been handed to all mankind thru the Pillar and Foundaition of Truth 1Tim 3:15 and have not and will not change and more than God will change.
davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm

But on carm they change, and Matt Slick has no authority to define essentials for any christian in the first place.

 

[clmowry]

Let’s see you post a post from the catechism that says what I said and tell me to take it up with The Church.

I don’t get it.

But then again I guess all of this is off topic anyway.

Chuck

This is something you will have to take up with your church, not with me.

“Since the fourth century the teaching of the Church concerning the nature of the Bible is practically summed up in the dogmatic formula that God is the author of Sacred Scripture.” newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm136 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture **because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them (CCC)

 

[Nicene]

This is something you will have to take up with your church, not with me.

“Since the fourth century the teaching of the Church concerning the nature of the Bible is practically summed up in the dogmatic formula that God is the author of Sacred Scripture.” newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm

136 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture **because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them (CCC)

And that’s exactly what he said:

*I belive “inspired” not “authored” would be the word of choice.

God didn’t pick up a pen an jot a few things down.

He also didn’t dictate the script to the authors.

In fact I don’t think either God or the authors claimed such a thing.

I think belief that those writings that constitute scripture are inspired by God and that their Authors wrote what God wanted them to write is something that silly Catholic Church made up.*

However I noticed you skipped something:

136 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth **(cf. DV 11).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully “understood except by the Spirit’s action” (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

So why do you try to make it seem as though he is at odds with the church when in fact he isn’t?

As I have said before many times. I have yet to meet an honest fundamental apologist. Deception is the bread and butter.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[KatholikosMercy]

In my opinion, you’d be wasting your money with either proposition.

Heh, Nothing is impossible with God.

 

[Atemi]

They cannot, have not and will not.

But they have for Catholics…and will change again and again and again as long as new dogmas are being defined.

Just over 50 years ago a devout Catholic could deny that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven and that had no bearing upon their salvation.

A Catholic today MUST believe it or be guilty of the sin of heresy and be damned.

That is changing essentials if there ever was.

…

 

[mikeledes]

Yes. You are obviously better served by only staying where everyone agrees with you.

Who are you directing this to?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

Like I said, if you don’t believe in the idea that God created people to be free, that is your loss.

Maybe you seek a nice theocratic (Catholic) tyranny. Good for you.

It is very interesting that you equate freedom of expression with sin. I have had these dialogues with devout Catholics before. They often long for the Golden Age of the Inquisitions.

Who knows, maybe your wish will become a reality…

 

[Nicene]

Atemi,

If you disagree with this statement he made:

“God didn’t pick up a pen an jot a few things down.”

I would like you to show us in sacred scripture where God did in fact write this down himself by picking up pen and parchment and not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Pauls letters, and the catholic epistles. As well as the OT, I.e. Moses, David, The prophets etc.

Cite your references in scripture.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Atemi]

So why do you try to make it seem as though he is at odds with the church when in fact he isn’t?

Because he put “inspired” at odds with “authored.”

“I belive “inspired” not “authored” would be the word of choice.”

The Church is clear that God is the Author of Holy Writ.

If you now want to claim that God is the author of Scripture but never authored it, then you are on your own in that fantasy.

You are not paying very good attention.

I said: “your church also says that God authored the Scriptures”

The RC poster replied: “Really? I don’t think that is quite accurate”

Wrong.

It is TOTALLY accurate, even according to the RCC herself.

It is amazing how I find myself constantly defending what the Church teaches against Catholics.

Amazing.

…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

But they have for Catholics…and will change again and again and again as long as new dogmas are being defined.

Just over 50 years ago a devout Catholic could deny that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven and that had no bearing upon their salvation.

A Catholic today MUST believe it or be guilty of the sin of heresy and be damned.

That is changing essentials if there ever was.

…

It appears that before the Council of Nicea, one could deny the Trinity, and it would have no bearing on their salvation. Did the Church change the essentials at Nicea? Just a thought. And, just so you know, I have often been frustrated by such developments as the Assumption myself. I’m still a little wary of anything defined after the Schism with the Orthodox…

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Well, that’s not quite what I said if you will take a look. From my experience, CA is significantly more open to charitable and reasonable discussion, but I’ve had the same at CARM as well. The threads at CARM do tend to be more pointed in a way that would not be tolerated here. That’s one reasons why I spend much more time here than there, although not in the Traditional Catholic forum. You can get the same sort of nasty posting there, as a Protestant, that you get over at CARM as a Catholic, but the moderators here at CA do a good job in keeping things in line here.

Do you think that is because Catholic, which after all means universal is inclined to be more understanding, tolerant and as such is a better witness of Jesus agape love?

Aside from defending the sins of any individual who may be affiliated with any particular institution they are indoctrinated in, and all the past sins of men in those institutions as well, you cannot help but arrive at the lineage of the universal church going directly to the cornerstone and headship of Jesus the Christ.

If by nothing else than to read the writings of bishop Ignatius of Antioch [105].

The Lord told me that I would be persecuted for his sake and I am not complaining to my Master for his warning. I am only posting about the duality and hypocrisy of carms tyranny so that Christians can find out the truth by the benefit of my experiences of being disrespected so many times in the name of Christ at the hands of Matt Slicks/carms minions.

 

[Nicene]

Because he put “inspired” at odds with “authored.”

“I belive “inspired” not “authored” would be the word of choice.”

The Church is clear that God is the Author of Holy Writ.

If you now want to claim that God is the author of Scripture but never authored it, then you are on your own in that fantasy.

You are not paying very good attention.

I said: “your church also says that God authored the Scriptures”

The RC poster replied: “Really? I don’t think that is quite accurate”

Wrong.

It is TOTALLY accurate, even according to the RCC herself.

It is amazing how I find myself constantly defending what the Church teaches against Catholics.

Amazing.

…

You are not paying very good attention, nethier to him nor me. His use of authorship is quite clear when he stated it. That God did not pick up pen and paper.

The church does say that God is the primary author of scripture. You pitted him against that. Ergo you must believe he did pick up pen and paper. Please show scripture that this occurred.

You are living in a fantasy if you think he said any differently. And the catechism references I showed in full acknowledge the deception you tried to employ.

Since you are claiming God did author scripture in the first person. Show it. By putting yourself at odds with him this is what you are declaring.

No more deception please.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[rr1213]

Do you think that is because Catholic, which after all means universal is inclined to be more understanding, tolerant and as such is a better witness of Jesus agape love?

Frankly, I’m not sure why this is the case.

 

[Atemi]

You are not paying very good attention, nethier to him nor me. His use of authorship is quite clear when he stated it. That God did not pick up pen and paper.

IRRELEVANT.

I never claimed that God picked up pen and paper. I merely said God authored the Scriptures.

Undeniable…except in this thread.

Like I said, you are not paying attention at all.