The Invention of Catholicism?

[Bubba_Switzler]

If one can understand the trinity view, one will understand that the new creation eliminates the “holding place”, the prisoners Jesus came to liberate.

The **“lost” **denotes a condition of state of the human soul which needed changing.

The change was from the **“lost” **to the “Saved” condition of the human soul.

Hence: two distinct creations, the one, physical and the other spiritual.

The holding place was a prison to the “lost estate human souls” of which Jesus went to visit and liberate.

How else could God include all “lost” souls from the beginning of humanity to the time Jesus died on the cross?

After Christ, yes, easily understood, but to think that prior to Jesus’ payment, there was no reconciliation of the human soul with God.

I think you’re mixing up two different concepts: pre-Christ holding,when the gates of heaven had not been opened, and pergatory, a place where individuals go.

(It’s also worth noting that Protestants and Catholics alike seem to forget about the resurrection of the body and imagine, instead, a disembodied heaven as a final destination.)

The question might but put differently: is there only two simple categories, “lost” and “saved” or is there a middle ground “being saved”?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For example, the Baptist religion started off as a temperance movement, and one of the unquestioned cultural assumptions of the temperance movement that transfers itself into some forms of the Baptist religion is that partying, drink, and dancing lead to sin - so, given that assumption, when they read, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine at Cana, they will tell you that it was “obviously” grape juice - even though there is no possible way it could be grape juice, since the steward mentions quite explicitly that it is the sort of wine that gets people drunk so that they won’t mind drinking inferior stuff later on. But these particular Baptists will argue with you forever that there is no possible way Jesus ever made alcoholic wine - because they begin with the unquestioned assumtion that alcohol is bad - and of course they also know that Jesus never did anything bad - so they put these two ideas together, and it causes them to be quite literally unable to read the plain text in front of them, in the Bible. They are literally blinded by their cultural assumptions - they either block out the passage altogether as “background noise” or else they reinterpret it to say something that it obviously does not say.

I know what you’re saying here. Someone could easily write a book “Dumb Things that Protestants Say”. But just bear in mind Matthew 7:5:

You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

 

[look3467]

Blah , Blah , Blah…

The Catholic church is the One, True church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its fist Pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.

And the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Not open to receive lost souls outside the Catholic Church Huh?

The gate of hell my friend is at the door of your heart.
Either you close the entrance of this worlds lusts to contaminate your heart, or you allow God to enter in and fill your heart with peace, joy, land love.

Tell me of one Catholic soul whose gone to church all the time who has not the same opportunity to bar evil from entering the heart?

Going to Church does help by gaining strength to resist the devil, but does not necessarily mean that it will, for it is you who decides.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

I think you’re mixing up two different concepts: pre-Christ holding,when the gates of heaven had not been opened, and pergatory, a place where individuals go.

(It’s also worth noting that Protestants and Catholics alike seem to forget about the resurrection of the body and imagine, instead, a disembodied heaven as a final destination.)

The question might but put differently: is there only two simple categories, “lost” and “saved” or is there a middle ground “being saved”?

Very simple! Pre-Christ holdings are because of the lost condition.
After Christ, the gates of hell and the gates of heaven are opened!

Psa 107:16 For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.

Brass = heavenly
Iron = prison’s gates

Peace>>>AJ

 

[jake23]

Bubba I am starting to think that you just like to see youself write and hear yourself talk!

 

[look3467]

Including the idea (which is pure Oral Tradition) that the Bible is a holy book, more special than other books.

What I am interested to know is why our stranded castaway chooses the Bible to create a religion around, rather than, say, How to Win Friends and Influence People, or Jansen’s History of Art, or even Peter Pan and Wendy.

When the word is read, as in the cast aways case, a desire to do something, the motivation to have some sort of commitment, as in the Eunuchs case, is what drives one.

To proclaim the new found good news is to want to share with others the goodness of God and the hope that is in Him.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[jlhargus]

But the problem is that Protestants also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and nobody has tongues flame over their heads to demonstrate the presence of the Holy Spirit.

JL: Ture there are no tongues of fire over anyones head today. I agree, but there are hands laid on heads in an unbroken line. [Lk 24:48 you are witnesses of these things 49 ** I SEND the promise of my Father upon you WAIT in Jerusalem TILL YOU ARE ENDUED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH. 2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the **GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY **the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 **God has given US **THE SPIRIT OF POWER, Titus1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS IN EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU. ACTS 14:23 when they had **ORDAINED ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH **and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. ACTS 20:28 Take heed of yourself, AND THE FLOCK over which the HOLY SPIRIT HAS MADE YOU OVERSEERS TO FEED the church of God purchased with his own blood, 1 TIM 5:17 Let the **ELDERS THAT RULE **well be counted worthy of double honour especially they WHO LABOUR IN THE WORD AND DOCTRINE. 1 TIM4:13 Till I come **ATTEND TO READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE **14 Do not neglect **THE GIFT **in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH the **LAYING ON THE HANDS **of the presbytery 16 **TAKE HEED **TO yourself to the **DOCTRINE CONTINUE IN THEM **for in doing this YOU SHALT both **SAVE YOURSELF AND THOSE WHO HEAR YOU. ** [Passing on that power from on high in an unbroken line from the apostles to the bishops today. Catholics have that unbroken sucession]

You post Protestants also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, While I agree the Holy Spirit works in all groups. I don’t think Christ established a tower of babel, so the Holy Spirit could see just how many contradicting doctrines and contentious groups they could be scattered into, till Christ returns. Mt 12:25 EVERY KINGOM DIVIDED against itself is laid waste and no city or house divided against itself will stand. There is only one body of Christ and Christ has only one bride not a harem of thousands.

The claim reminds me of the Moses and Korah in the OT: Nb16:1-50 I will give a short version. KORAH and others gathered agains Moses and Aaron. They said YOU TAKE TOO MUCH ON YOU, ALL THE CONGREGATION ARE HOLY AND THE LORD IS AMONG THEM. WHY THEN LIFT UP YOURSELVES ABOVE THE CONGREGATION? MOSES SAID DO YOU SEEK THE PRIESTHOOD ALSO? Dathan and Abiram said, YOU MAKE YOURSELF A PRINCE OVER US. Moses told them to be present along with him and Aaron the next day with censers and put incense on it and stand at the entrance of the tent of meeting, they did as he said. MOSES SAID, HEREBY YOU SHALL KNOW THE LORD HAS SENT ME. Long story short you can get all the details in Nb16:1-50. When Moses finished speaking the ground opened and swallowed them and their houses, all the men and their goods who sided with Korah. We hear the same old story today, all God’s people are a holy priesthood, (which they are) we don’t need a pope, bishops or priests. Who put them as princes over the congregation? The same one who SENT Moses and Aaron, SENT the Apostles and the Apostles SENT those whom they laid hands on with the same Holy Spirit as they received at Pentacost. T his Holy Apostolic Fellowship which he promised to be with till the end of time. Through successors by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop till the end of the age through the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church the pillar and ground of truth to which Christ promised the Spirit of Truth and promised gates of hell will never prevail against that body of Christ, his bride to whom he is joined as ONE flesh. The mother who gives birth to her children by water and Spirit=baptism, by the power of God. It is a mystery as St Paul says in Eph 5::30 For we are members of his body, OF HIS FLESH, AND HIS BONES. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be ONE flesh. 32 This is A GREAT MYSTERY: but I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

 

[look3467]

You post Protestants also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, While I agree the Holy Spirit works in all groups.>>>jlhargus

If you would have stopped there, at the end of that sentence, you will have realized that the rest of this threads discussion is basically a learning experience?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[jmcrae]

When the word is read, as in the cast aways case, a desire to do something, the motivation to have some sort of commitment, as in the Eunuchs case, is what drives one.

My point is that he can just as easily find deep meaning that influences how he lives his life and how he thinks of himself in relation to God, the world, and others, in many other books, too. The Bible is not alone in containing (or seeming to contain) wisdom. It is Oral Tradition from the Catholic Church that tells us that the Bible is more special and more important than these other books - our castaway would have no way of knowing this.

 

[look3467]

My point is that he can just as easily find deep meaning that influences how he lives his life and how he thinks of himself in relation to God, the world, and others, in many other books, too. The Bible is not alone in containing (or seeming to contain) wisdom. It is Oral Tradition from the Catholic Church that tells us that the Bible is more special and more important than these other books - our castaway would have no way of knowing this.

You are right in what you are saying, but in the case of being stranded, there would be only but one book.

Question is, is sufficient knowledge of God understood for salvation?

If hearing of the word, as in reading of the word is sufficient and that all it takes is faith the size of a mustard seed, than knowledge of salvation is not all that difficult to understand.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You post Protestants also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, While I agree the Holy Spirit works in all groups. I don’t think Christ established a tower of babel, so the Holy Spirit could see just how many contradicting doctrines and contentious groups they could be scattered into, till Christ returns. Mt 12:25 EVERY KINGOM DIVIDED against itself is laid waste and no city or house divided against itself will stand. There is only one body of Christ and Christ has only one bride not a harem of thousands.

This is a very common Catholic argument but I do not find it persuasive. I do not see contradicting doctrines to be the problem. I think most people will agree, if they stop and think about it for a moment, that the primary goal is truth and agreement on truth is a secondary concern. To put it another way, if I have a choice between believing something that is true and agreeing with you on something that is false, I will choose to believe what is true even if it is divisive. And there is plenty of support for that choice in scripture (e.g. “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.”).

Nor am I persuaded that if there are contradicting doctrines, then the gates of hell have prevailed. It sounds like the reducio ad absurdum rants that if I we can’t bring soft drinks on airplanes then the terrorists have won. The fact that Protestants and Catholics disagree on theology doesn’t seem to me to be a Tower of Babel leading to the destruction of mankind. Theological disagreement is not a “house divided against itself.” In fact, if you really want to weaken any institution, just make it impossible to disagree. Then evreryone will be focused not on what is true but on what others believe to be true. That’s how stock bubbles are created. And we all know how that ends.

 

[jmcrae]

This is a very common Catholic argument but I do not find it persuasive. I do not see contradicting doctrines to be the problem.

Why is it not a problem? Obviously, if there is a contradiction, someone is wrong.

I think most people will agree, if they stop and think about it for a moment, that the primary goal is truth and agreement on truth is a secondary concern.

If there is truth, then everyone must believe it - everyone is morally obligated to agree with it.

To put it another way, if I have a choice between believing something that is true and agreeing with you on something that is false, I will choose to believe what is true even if it is divisive.

This is right and good. The person who believes something false is wrong.

The Catholic Church is the repository of Truth, according to Christ’s promise. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail” meanst that it cannot teach anything false - therefore, anyone who teaches differently than the Catholic Church is, by definition, wrong, according to Christ’s promise to the Church. Can Christ be wrong? Can Christ break His promises? If “no” to either of those, then we must believe what the Catholic Church teaches, because Christ has already told us that it is true.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why is it not a problem? Obviously, if there is a contradiction, someone is wrong.

Yes, absolutely. But it is one thing to know that someone is wrong and another thing to know who is wrong. (Also, there is the secondary question of whether being wrong means not being saved. The Catholic Church does deal with this issue but it is not simply that people who have wrong beliefs go straight to hell.)

If there is truth, then everyone must believe it - everyone is morally obligated to agree with it. This is right and good. The person who believes something false is wrong.

If I choose to believe that which is false then I am committing a moral error of some sort. (Similarly if I teach what I know to be false.) This also implies that everyone has a moral obligation to seek the truth to the best of their ability.

Now you did say “if there is truth”. There are certainly those who will argue that there is no truth or that there is no objective truth. But while we may skoff at that, it is certainly the case that there is also subjective truth. I include there not just personal revelation but general life experience.

But when I said that contradicting doctrines is not the problem what I meant was contradicting doctrines is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem which is that somebody is wrong. The problem is not solved simply by agreeing since we could agree on a false belief. Suppression of disagreement is thus not a solution to the problem.

The Catholic Church is the repository of Truth, according to Christ’s promise. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail” meanst that it cannot teach anything false - therefore, anyone who teaches differently than the Catholic Church is, by definition, wrong, according to Christ’s promise to the Church. Can Christ be wrong? Can Christ break His promises? If “no” to either of those, then we must believe what the Catholic Church teaches, because Christ has already told us that it is true.

This is certainly what Catholic dogma teaches. To put it simply: the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church teaches the truth and that Christ promised that the Catholic Church cannot teach anything but the truth. I hope the circularity there is plain enough to see.

As I said elsewhere, belief in the infallibility of the Catholic Church is a matter of faith. Catholics are perfectly willing to grant that belief in God is a matter of faith, that it cannot be proven (though many have tried throughout history). But for some reason, Catholics have trouble acknowledging the faith required to believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, absolutely. But it is one thing to know that someone is wrong and another thing to know who is wrong. (Also, there is the secondary question of whether being wrong means not being saved. The Catholic Church does deal with this issue but it is not simply that people who have wrong beliefs go straight to hell.)

Right - they don’t go to Hell if they are sincerely convinced, but at the same time, they also can’t be in good standing with the Church.

If I choose to believe that which is false then I am committing a moral error of some sort. (Similarly if I teach what I know to be false.) This also implies that everyone has a moral obligation to seek the truth to the best of their ability.

Right. This is why someone who follows his conscience “instead of” Church teaching (or what he understands to be Church teaching) has to be absolutely certain that there is no possible way he could be mistaken.

Now you did say “if there is truth”. There are certainly those who will argue that there is no truth or that there is no objective truth. But while we may skoff at that, it is certainly the case that there is also subjective truth. I include there not just personal revelation but general life experience.

There are “relative truths” but when you examine them, they are absolute truths that apply in a limited circumstance. For example, “I am craving a hot cherry pie with whipped cream on it” can be true at some times, and false at others - but it can be reframed into an absolute truth by saying, “There are times when I crave hot cherry pie with whipped cream.”

But when I said that contradicting doctrines is not the problem what I meant was contradicting doctrines is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem which is that somebody is wrong. The problem is not solved simply by agreeing since we could agree on a false belief. Suppression of disagreement is thus not a solution to the problem.

Nor should we leave people to “agree to disagree.” We should provide them with the tools and information they need to enable them to find the truth.

This is certainly what Catholic dogma teaches. To put it simply: the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church teaches the truth and that Christ promised that the Catholic Church cannot teach anything but the truth. I hope the circularity there is plain enough to see.

Yes, but the circle changes to a line when you look to history and see Who founded the Catholic Church. Even without Christ’s promise of infallibility (for those who argue that “the gates of hell” is something other than the falsehoods of Satan), the fact that He founded it would be reason enough to believe it’s teachings, since they would be far more likely to be at least “close” to His will for us than anything else. And there is absolutely no doubt that the Catholic Church is what Christ founded, when we use logic and the process of elimination.

As I said elsewhere, belief in the infallibility of the Catholic Church is a matter of faith. Catholics are perfectly willing to grant that belief in God is a matter of faith, that it cannot be proven (though many have tried throughout history). But for some reason, Catholics have trouble acknowledging the faith required to believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Well - less faith is required, because you can arrive at that conclusion by taking a few very Biblical facts about Jesus and His Church (Christ would not lie to us; Christ’s church has existed from 33 AD until now without interruption; Christ’s Church is a city on a hillside; not a lamp under a bushel basket, Christ’s Church is founded on a Rock, etc.) and by then looking at history to see which organization matches the parameters thus set.

 

[elvisman]

Catholic means universal = all Christians who believe in the resurrection

WRONG.
"All" who believe in the resurrection are not Catholic. They may be Christian - but they have chosen to be separated from that Church.

The Catholic Church is the one Church established by Jesus our Lord. Any other believers in the resurrection are not part of the Catholic Church - otherwise they would believe as the Catholic Church universally.

Early Catholics only had Jewish law and tradition and were not required to live under it.

What??
To which “early” Catholics are you referring?

Roman Catholic = Christians who are required to live under Roman law and tradition

What is “Roman” law?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are “relative truths” but when you examine them, they are absolute truths that apply in a limited circumstance. For example, “I am craving a hot cherry pie with whipped cream on it” can be true at some times, and false at others - but it can be reframed into an absolute truth by saying, “There are times when I crave hot cherry pie with whipped cream.”

I think there is more to it than that. Yes, you can turn all subjective claims into objective claims by adding in the subject (and pertinent facts). But the critical distinction is testability. There is no way for me to test your claim that you “craving a hot cherry pie with whipped cream on it”. I can only take your word for it. (That is the essence of a subjective claim.)

So the question then is whether and how subjective experience affects theology and our understanding of truth. While I’ll be the first to admit that people routinely reach for their “conscience” when they don’t want to be bothered to think about something, it doesn’t mean that there is nothing there.

Nor should we leave people to “agree to disagree.” We should provide them with the tools and information they need to enable them to find the truth.

Well, I couldn’t agree more there. I have always been a big proponent of evangilization as education, persuasion, and even debate.

Yes, but the circle changes to a line when you look to history and see Who founded the Catholic Church. Even without Christ’s promise of infallibility (for those who argue that “the gates of hell” is something other than the falsehoods of Satan), the fact that He founded it would be reason enough to believe it’s teachings, since they would be far more likely to be at least “close” to His will for us than anything else. And there is absolutely no doubt that the Catholic Church is what Christ founded, when we use logic and the process of elimination.

Well - less faith is required, because you can arrive at that conclusion by taking a few very Biblical facts about Jesus and His Church (Christ would not lie to us; Christ’s church has existed from 33 AD until now without interruption; Christ’s Church is a city on a hillside; not a lamp under a bushel basket, Christ’s Church is founded on a Rock, etc.) and by then looking at history to see which organization matches the parameters thus set.

You say “less faith is required” but less than what? That’s a relative claim. From my own research the issue is not nearly so clean and simple. But even to consider the question you have to make comparisons. And there are, of course, competing theories to consider.

 

[sdtouchton]

Why Protestantism will never last:

1. Simply because Holy Scripture gave no one the authority to found another church other than the one which Jesus Christ founded:

There are now over 38,000* different non-Catholic denominations in the world today. Please show me the verse(s) in Holy Scripture which authorize any human person to found even one of those tens of thousands? Any sect without GOD given authority to exist, is a false man-made sect.

*World Christian Encyclopedia, April 2006. It is a Protestant publication.

---

1. Simply because Holy Scripture has said it will not survive:

“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.”
Psalms 127:1.

What is meant by the “house that the Lord builds”? Notice that it is a singular “house” and not houses. The answer is in the New Testament:
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
1Timothy 3:15
Thus the house built by the Lord is the singular Church of the living GOD.
These verses teach us that GOD founded His one and only Church and none other.
In the Old Testament, there was only one Jewish temple, the singular House of GOD, and it was centered in Jerusalem.
In the New Testament, again GOD set up His one and only Church, and today it is centered in Rome.
This is shown in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus said, “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.”
Notice that Jesus did say “church” and not “churches” in this verse.
Wouldn’t you have to agree that each of these three verses alone, negate all of those tens of thousands of individual man-made sects?

However, there are additional verses which reinforce those three:
“According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
1Corinthians 3:10-11
No other foundation means, no other church but the one which Jesus Christ founded.

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
Matthew 7:24-27

Notice that Jesus mentioned the house (Church) built upon the “rock” here. This verse gives us a hint of what Jesus will say later in Matthew 16:18. He is the “wise man” who will build His one Church on “rock”. It is clear that the “fool who built his house on sand”, represents all denominations which were not founded by Jesus Christ.
As Psalms 127:1 said, “those who build it labor in vain”. And as Matthew 7:27 continues, “the rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined”.

“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”
Mark 3:24-25

“A (meaning only one) house divided against itself”?
A much worse case situation would be 38,000+ houses divided against themselves, would it not?

---

1. Simply because not one of the thousands of sects can show that it was founded by GOD:

Not one can trace its history back before 1500 A.D… There are no genuine historical documents that any one of them can find to “prove” that their origins are any older. By the time the first one came into existence, the Catholic Church was already approaching 1500 years of age.
However, all of them can only trace their heritage back to a mere human person founder, and never back to Jesus Christ.
Doesn’t Psalms 127:1 seem to echo, echo, echo, here?
For more details plz visit authors page home.inreach.com/bstanley/protest.htm

 

[1beleevr]

Sorry to burst your bubble, coachstl, but if I haven’t embraced the catholic church after 42 years in Christ, I’m not about to start! Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, when comparing being nondenominational, with being politically independent! You see, some people, whether Democrat or Republican will vote the entire ticket, even if they don’t know or agree with all the candidates ! After growing up in a Baptist church, and finding too many things that I was not comfortable with(not being able to raise my hands during worship,etc), I began attending a nondenominational church; where I have experienced such growth and freedom! And contrary to what you may believe, I do seek after God’s heart!

 

[1beleevr]

Let’s see; if I were stranded on a desert isle, and all I had was my Bible(BasicInstructions Before Leaving Earth), what would I think of the catholic church once I got back? Well, probably the same way I have felt for many years, they are different than I am! And having the Bible to read, would give me strength, wisdom, hope knowledge, and comfort! God’s word, gives us direction and the tools to lead us to salvation!

 

[1beleevr]

Oh, no!! I am growing in my faith(thank you God for grace and the discernment of the Holy Spirit), without being a catholic! I’m still trying to find scripture, where Jesus calls it the catholic church I mean I know that the word catholic means universal, or general!