Uncommon Problem with RCC

[Kliska]

:You and I both know the ridicules fallacies of the JWs and how easy it is to point out. But the point is they interpret scripture differently not unlike you and I or my protestant kin. So your argument is equally on their side, my side, and my protestant kin side. so we are back to the original issue. Who’s interpretation is correct and how do you know?

This is the hard part; you can sit and argue with them, but in the end it is up to them and God, as it is up to us and God. What I mean by that is that for us, as individuals, we have to take a stand on what we believe to be true. Even those in the Roman Catholic Church do the same. In the end, we are to be lead by Him, and I can only turn to scripture and to say that the Spirit testifies to our spirit.

Further, I do say that there are Mere Christianity beliefs that are easily shown in scripture, and held by Christians early and late, such as the Apostles’ Creed that can be used as a benchmark. Does that solve it all? No. But as we go into the Apostles’ Creed and bring in the scriptures, it will differentiate what I would consider fundamental Christian belief from non-fundamental.

That is not my hope

If you believe it to be truth and the fullness thereof, I hope you hope I convert!!

My hope is that we can all see the same truth and share the same unity as Jesus prayed in John 17.

In total agreement, truly.

I agree we are not all going to agree on the unimportant things but I don’t think that was what he worried about in John 17 but if this is your ultimate answer then I guess I will go on wondering how someone, who knows nothing about religion, can take this paradigm and wind up 50% of the time JW and the other 50% Christian. You have said nothing different than any JW preaching their message. Please don’t take this harshly. I just honestly don’t see the difference.

Yet you and I both see the radical difference between what you and I believe and what the JW’s believe. To take a step back, it is the same as the question how do I apply what I believe to the differences between Islam and Christianity. The answer is the same in each case; study, prayer, the Holy Spirit, digging into meanings and history and figuring it out. How did the Bereans know what the Apostles teaching was true? They searched the scriptures daily.

And more to you!!!

 

[adf417]

This is the hard part; you can sit and argue with them, but in the end it is up to them and God, as it is up to us and God. What I mean by that is that for us, as individuals, we have to take a stand on what we believe to be true. Even those in the Roman Catholic Church do the same. In the end, we are to be lead by Him, and I can only turn to scripture and to say that the Spirit testifies to our spirit.

Further, I do say that there are Mere Christianity beliefs that are easily shown in scripture, and held by Christians early and late, such as the Apostles’ Creed that can be used as a benchmark. Does that solve it all? No. But as we go into the Apostles’ Creed and bring in the scriptures, it will differentiate what I would consider fundamental Christian belief from non-fundamental.

With respect Kliska this is where I start to see you are contradicting yourself. First you say it’s hard then you say its easy.

How does this answer the original question pablope had…How do you determine who is right and who is wrong? or in your terms…when we take a stand on what we believe to be true, how do we know we are right? Is it not obvious that all feel we have done exactly this and yet there are so many differences and so many understanding of what is considered to be fundamental Christian belief?

I continue to put myself in the position of the individual who dropped in from nowhere and had never heard of any religion then begins to listen to what every apologist out there has to say about their religion… Isn’t it only supposed to be easy for this person?

If you believe it to be truth and the fullness thereof, I hope you hope I convert!!

Understood - but more specifically my hope is merely that you see the CC to have the fullness of truth in its teaching. I don’t have a problem with most of the beliefs of my protestant brothers. There are many who have converted to the CC or grew up in the faith who don’t necessarily believe in all of the teachings of the CC. Conversion from this standpoint is no better than not converting IMO.

Peace to you and your whole family on the holiday!!!

 

[Kliska]

With respect Kliska this is where I start to see you are contradicting yourself. First you say it’s hard then you say its easy.

To show the truth or falsity of teachings from the scriptural perspective is easy; for someone to understand and faithe on it can be hard (depending on the person). I would think neither of us believes in irresistible grace; therefore, the same question would apply to you: how does anyone come to be a Christian? I propose it is by grace through faith, and it is their responsibility to place their trust in Christ.

The scriptures line out salvation, it is the word of God, is living and efficacious. It is up to the person to receive it and faithe on it. That’s where God, not me, comes in.

How does this answer the original question pablope had…How do you determine who is right and who is wrong? or in your terms…when we take a stand on what we believe to be true, how do we know we are right? Is it not obvious that all feel we have done exactly this and yet there are so many differences and so many understanding of what is considered to be fundamental Christian belief?

Read letters like 1 John.

I continue to put myself in the position of the individual who dropped in from nowhere and had never heard of any religion then begins to listen to what every apologist out there has to say about their religion… Isn’t it only supposed to be easy for this person?

They should be searching scripture for themselves, again, the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see what was true in what they were being told. The scripture is the very word of God and does not return void.

Peace to you and your whole family on the holiday!!!

To you and yours as well!

 

[ezeekl]

To show the truth or falsity of teachings from the scriptural perspective is easy; for someone to understand and faithe on it can be hard (depending on the person). I would think neither of us believes in irresistible grace; therefore, the same question would apply to you: how does anyone come to be a Christian? I propose it is by grace through faith, and it is their responsibility to place their trust in Christ.

The scriptures line out salvation, it is the word of God, is living and efficacious. It is up to the person to receive it and faithe on it. That’s where God, not me, comes in.

Read letters like 1 John.

They should be searching scripture for themselves, again, the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see what was true in what they were being told. The scripture is the very word of God and does not return void.

To you and yours as well!

So how many truths are there? Are there different truths for different people? Seems to me that if different people interpret the scriptures differently then God is talking out of both sides of His mouth. Unless of course there is only one interpretation of scripture that is truth and all the other interpretations are not truth. You need someone to say, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” In Catholicism, as in the early church, that is the church for it has the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven. In protestantism there isn’t anyone with the authority to say, “Thus sayeth the Lord…”. So no protestant denomination can claim that another one is heretical because they interpret scripture differently and base their doctrine on that interpretation. So you end up with some protestant group’s doctrines saying that Baptism is necessary for salvation while others say it is not . Some say Baptism is a sacrament while others say it is an ordinance. Some say Baptism is for children and adults while others say adults only. Some say in Baptism the water can be poured while others say that baptism can only be by full immersion. So I ask you where is the real truth in all of this??? Scripture says the truth will make one free. Only one of these protestant doctrines is the truth and will set one free. What about the others? If they are not the truth can they set anyone free?

 

[adf417]

To show the truth or falsity of teachings from the scriptural perspective is easy; for someone to understand and faithe on it can be hard (depending on the person). I would think neither of us believes in irresistible grace; therefore, the same question would apply to you: how does anyone come to be a Christian? I propose it is by grace through faith, and it is their responsibility to place their trust in Christ.

The scriptures line out salvation, it is the word of God, is living and efficacious. It is up to the person to receive it and faithe on it. That’s where God, not me, comes in.

Read letters like 1 John.

They should be searching scripture for themselves, again, the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see what was true in what they were being told. The scripture is the very word of God and does not return void.

To you and yours as well!

…still makes no sense.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!!!

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kliska
To show the truth or falsity of teachings from the scriptural perspective is easy; for someone to understand and faithe on it can be hard (depending on the person). I would think neither of us believes in irresistible grace; therefore, the same question would apply to you: how does anyone come to be a Christian? I propose it is by grace through faith, and it is their responsibility to place their trust in Christ.

The scriptures line out salvation, it is the word of God, is living and efficacious. It is up to the person to receive it and faithe on it. That’s where God, not me, comes in.

Read letters like 1 John.

They should be searching scripture for themselves, again, the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see what was true in what they were being told. The scripture is the very word of God and does not return void.

To you and yours as well!

…still makes no sense.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!!!

It makes sense only if you stand on one foot, close your eyes, cover your ears and say, “I am right and you are wrong”, ten times. But really you are correct, it makes no sense at all.

 

[Kliska]

So how many truths are there?

One Truth, and He is the Son of God, God the Son, Person of the Trinity.

…still makes no sense.

As I said, it is easier to think of from your perspective; how is an Islamic individual to come to know the truth of the gospel? It is the same idea. How do you come to know any truth?

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!!!

And you! I’m baking my pecan pies today, let’s hope they turn out. lol

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
So how many truths are there?

One Truth, and He is the Son of God, God the Son, Person of the Trinity.

Nice dodge attempt but not good enough. I believe you know exactly what I meant and chose to give an answer that attempted to dodge the question. That is my charitable response. So here it is again reformulated for you. Which of the protestant doctrines on baptism is/are the truth and which, if any, are false and on what grounds do you make that determination? Note, all the doctrines I listed concerning Baptism use scripture as the basis for that doctrine. In some cases they use the same scripture passages to argue their position.

 

[Kliska]

Nice dodge attempt but not good enough. I believe you know exactly what I meant and chose to give an answer that attempted to dodge the question. That is my charitable response.

Don’t be “charitable” on my account. Calling the fact of Jesus being The Truth “a dodge” doesn’t seem that charitable to me. I am 100% serious; He is the Truth, and whatever we consider truth from the word of God points right at the Word of God.

So here it is again reformulated for you. Which of the protestant doctrines on baptism is/are the truth and which, if any, are false and on what grounds do you make that determination? Note, all the doctrines I listed concerning Baptism use scripture as the basis for that doctrine. In some cases they use the same scripture passages to argue their position.

This thread is not about baptism. But, it is about actions. I believe scripture clearly shows us that actions are important when it comes to seeing the fruit of the Spirit. Baptism is an action that is called for in scripture and is a direct action based upon faith that points right at Jesus. That is not the type of action the OP was asking about. If you want to ask all protestants here their views on baptism, a different thread might be in order.

 

[Tomdstone]

So how many truths are there? Are there different truths for different people

It seems like there are more than one truth. Take for example the question of capital punishment. Several hundred years ago, there were burnings at the stake as punishment for heresy or witchcraft. According to a book by Charles Lea, if a Catholic was opposed to this, his name was read out in Church as being excommunicated. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas approved of capital punishment for heresy. That was the truth then. However, today the truth is different, as we read in Catholic articles that a good Christian must oppose capital punishment.

 

[adf417]

It seems like there are more than one truth. Take for example the question of capital punishment. Several hundred years ago, there were burnings at the stake as punishment for heresy or witchcraft. According to a book by Charles Lea, if a Catholic was opposed to this, his name was read out in Church as being excommunicated. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas approved of capital punishment for heresy. That was the truth then. However, today the truth is different, as we read in Catholic articles that a good Christian must oppose capital punishment.

Tomdstone, do you have evidence that the punishment was carried out by the church for the heresy they proclaimed while protecting the faith or is this going to turn into another thread like this one…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=838621
where this subject has been hashed over and over?

There is only one truth as there always has been. There are, as you say, multiple truths that SEEM to show up, but only in misrepresentations as this post provides.

Peace!!!

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone, do you have evidence that the punishment was carried out by the church for the heresy they proclaimed while protecting the faith or is this going to turn into another thread like this one…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=838621
where this subject has been hashed over and over?

There is only one truth as there always has been. There are, as you say, multiple truths that SEEM to show up, but only in misrepresentations as this post provides.

Peace!!!

What is the truth concerning capital punishment. Is it something that Catholics should agree to or not?

 

[Brendan_64]

what is the truth concerning capital punishment. Is it something that catholics should agree to or not?

ccc 2267

 

[Tomdstone]

ccc 2267

OK, but it doesn’t mention whether or not the crime of heresy should merit the death penalty.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is only one truth as there always has been.

What is the truth with reference to torture. It seems like there are at least two different truths on that. For example, I believe that today the Church leaders oppose torture. However, in the past torture was allowed to extract confessions from heretics, was it not?
Should Catholics approve of the torture used by the Inquisition or not?

 

[DaveBj]

For the record (and I have just finished a major church history work that dealt with these issues), torture and capital punishment for heresy were carried out by civil, not ecclesiastical, authorities.

However, there is still some validity to Tomdstone’s question, because the ecclesiastical authorities supported and encouraged the actions of the civil authorities.

(Aside to Tom – aren’t you glad your parents didn’t give you a middle name starting with B? )

 

[adf417]

What is the truth with reference to torture. It seems like there are at least two different truths on that. For example, I believe that today the Church leaders oppose torture. However, in the past torture was allowed to extract confessions from heretics, was it not?
Should Catholics approve of the torture used by the Inquisition or not?

One truth - two entities. which is the reason why it SEEM to be two truths sense we live in a time today of separation of church and state.

1. Yes torture was allowed but only by the civil authorities.
2. Not

I am not an original thinker and I know there has been much written on this subject so I would like to refer you to this old thread… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2252297#post2252297
post #17 spells this out quite well but feel free to read the whole thread.

Peace!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

What you are experiencing is the same from your perspective as if someone gave me a catechism (I have one, but just using an example ). I’m sure that you believe it contains all true teaching that lines up with scripture. When I read it, I would assume your hope is that the Spirit guides me and *my will lines up *and I am converted to the RC faith, and join the RCC. My view is the same; the truth is there, and it is up to the person through study and prayer, as well as the influence of the Spirit to come to that truth, only using scripture and not catechism.

Since you mentioned that you own a Catechism, I thought I would share this:

The Catechism – 2,000 Years of Greatest Hits

Imagine that you go to church one Sunday and hear a really good sermon by the pastor of your church. You are so impressed with his talk that you call the church office on Monday to get a copy of his notes. You’re in luck…it turns out that the tape ministry department has just completed duplicating the sermon, and you can stop by to get a copy to listen to while you’re driving. Delighted, you drive over and buy a copy and pick up the notes…

The following Sunday, the same thing happens. And the next. And the next. After awhile you have a notebook full of your pastor’s talks and a tape library of all your favorites to match. Yes, sir…you’ve learned a lot from this gifted man of God…you’re really being fed in this church.

The Catechism is sorta like that except that it represents the “Greatest Hits” of the past 2,000 years.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe the 5 sola’s work along with the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I understand why some don’t feel the same.

Well, perhaps it is because at least two of the sola’s can be proved false FROM SCRIPTURE.

1. Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura? If you cannot produce a verse, then the doctrine of sola scriptura is self-refuting. You can take a shot at this if you want, but I can save you a lot of trouble because I have spent YEARS following all the debates and arguments: NOWHERE is there a single verse which teaches this man-made doctrine.
2. Where does the Bible teach sola fide? Now, hang on…I know you can pull a bazillion verses which talk about faith, etc., but not one of them specifically says, “We are saved by faith alone.”

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

 

[Randy_Carson]

They should be searching scripture for themselves, again, the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see what was true in what they were being told. The scripture is the very word of God and does not return void.

Ah…the Bereans…the world’s first sola scripturists. Well…maybe not.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.