Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[mpjw2]

My question was: do you think there might be lots and lots of people who die with some unforgiven sin or other on their souls? Is it probable in fact that most people die with some unconfessed/unforgiven sin(s) on their soul? If so, what happens to them?

You haven’t answered what happens to people with un-confessed and un-forgiven sins on their souls, which, say, they didn’thave an opportunity (or remember) to confess before they died.

You blithely declare that you don’t believe in Purgatory - not to say that your believing or not believing in something makes an iota of difference to the truth of its existence, as taught to us by God through His Church.

fxcc…I am sry I thought I answered that question too.

It is my belief that the only unforgiven sin is that sin which is not confessed and repented.

we always have an opportunity to confess our sin up until the moment we take our last breath.

As for the sins a person didn’t remember …I answered this way…

fxcc, in our imperfect human shells we live in and our imperfect memory we have we are going to forget sins we comitted.

If God can forgive a thief dying on a cross , my post #570, He sure will forgive you.

or any person who forgets sins commited …

the thief did not express to Jesus all the sins he comitted. His faith and believe and “blanket confession” saved him

In Luke 23:41 all the one criminal said was acknowledging guilt and expressing His believe in who Jesus is…

And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”

If you are concerned about any sin you may have forgotten, all you need to do is…

say a prayer of confession to God right where you are right now. God will hear you and forgive you. He knows the sincerity of your heart.

Something to the effect of…Dear God, I believe in you and your son Jesus Christ and by His blood my sins are forgiven. God I am sorry I sinned against you by _________________. God If you are aware of any blemish (sin) on my soul that I (honestly) forgot about, I ask you in Jesus name to cleanse and forgive me so that should I die you will welcome me into heaven. God it is my desire not to sin and follow your ways in my life.

fxcc… God will not let you down when you express your trust and faith in Him

after any person says a prayer of confession to God similiar to the one I stated, At the moment immediately following the prayer that person soul is white as fresh fallen snow.

If a person dies at that exact moment they are heaven-bound because the prayer covered all unforgotten sin.

If you ask for ________ in Jesus name, you will receive.

Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:24

For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Matthew 7:8

fxcc…I hope that answered your concern.

A question you need to answer to God is "Do you, from the bottom of your heart, trust Him with your life and have faith in Him and Jesus Christ?.

Faith is not easy…Did you see my tightrope illustration?

Over 100 years ago, a French tightrope walker named Blondin walked across Niagara Falls in front of a crowd of 100,000 people.
He then asked the crowd this question, “Do you believe I can walk across these falls with a man on my back?”
The whole crowd cheered, “Yes, we believe!” He then retorted, “Then who wants to get on my back?”
Needless to say, no one raised his or her hand. Blondin’s manager then climbed aboard his back and made the harrowing journey across the Falls.

Many people believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins, but are unwilling to completely trust Him with their lives.

Do you?

before you answer the question…reflect on this song …

because he lives
youtube.com/watch?v=MQBBihRwP8o

It help me in my times of struggles

God bless,

mpjw

 

[Saved_Lady]

Hi all,

I firmly believe that … whether you are catholic or not catholic, had prior exposure to the catholic church or never set foot in a catholic church … Salvation is for all mankind, no exceptions.

According to the bible, God makes it clear that salvaton is a personal choice.

If you are like me, hasn’t everyone sinned at one time or another? Broken at least one of the 10 commandments? i.e. (telling a lie, stealing something, lusting over another person or cursed against God)?

from the above example I am a lying adulterer thief who takes the Lord’s name in vain.

I do not believe there is a perfect sinless human living today or will ever be.
There was only one perfect person…His name Jesus Christ.

Sadly, I have communicated with catholics who argued with me that Jesus was not sinless.
Is there anyone here who believes that. I hope not. Jesus was and is without sin…God in the flesh.

Do you agree Jesus was without sin?

I believe all christians …catholic, baptists, protestant, lutheran, pentecostal, presbyterian etc… all believe the following facts regarding God, Jesus Christ, sin and salvation.

The fact that we all belong to an imperfect sinful world population… is bad news because the bible states, we are all doomed to hell … we must be punished for our sin.

We can not enter heaven with sin …agree?

The good news is…God, because He loves you and I, provided the ONE AND ONLY WAY for us to be with Him in heaven …

2000 years ago God made Himself human and walked the earth in the name of Jesus Christ.
Jesus spent a lot of time teaching and healing which caused a lot of people to believe in
him.

However, there were many who did not believe who Jesus claimed to be (the Messiah, the Son of God) and saw Him as a threat because they were not willing to accept the truth about who Jesus said He was. Thereby, they shouted out for Jesus to be crucified and for Pontius Pilate to release a criminal.

agree?

Before being crucified, Jesus was beaten, tortured and flogged.
In Jesus’s death on the cross He, being a sinless man, took upon Himself all the sins you and I ever committed or will commit.

agree?

So instead of us having to pay the punishment (hell) for our sin,
Jesus took our place and died for us so we would not have to be punished forever.

agree?

…the bible comfirms this…

**For God so loved **the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Belief is the first step, however just believing God does not forgive your sin.
the bible also says you must confess your sin.

agree?

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

also…you will need to repent
agree?

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matthew 9:13

The one and only way to be forgiven of our sins is by the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

agree?

Jesus said … “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through Me John 14:6

In summary…If we want to go to heaven and be forgiven of all your sin, there is only ONE way…

Ist … Admit that we are sinners
2nd… Believe, Trust in the promise of God and in the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ
3rd… Confess and repent our sin with sincerity from the bottom of our hearts
4th… Trust Jesus, who now reigns in heaven, to be Lord and saviour of our lives
5th … be in continuing prayer and confession to God, unfortunately we are not perfect and will always stumble (sin) until the day we die on earth

Agree?

Thank God for His loving grace that He is willing to give us 2nd, 3rd, 100, 10 x 10,000 and more chances in life so that we do not have to die a 2nd death and spend eternity in hell for our sin.

The following guidelines are not necessary for salvation. However I believe will help our spiritual growth and relationship with God.

we need to…

Spend some time each day praying and worshipping God.
Daily read the Bible
Begin to develop friendships with sincere Christians
Tell other people about your relationship with God.

Here are a few of my favorite you tube videos…

He knows my name
youtube.com/watch?v=GInxDhcR_O4&feature=related

because He lives
youtube.com/watch?v=MQBBihRwP8o

Martina Mcbride …“anyway”
youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_iNfxZl0I

I pray and hope I will see you all in paradise.

God bless you all

Thank you for your time

mpjw

I TOTALLY agree!! Well put.

 

[fxcc]

fxcc…I am sry I thought I answered that question too.

It is my belief that the only unforgiven sin is that sin which is not confessed and repented.

we always have an opportunity to confess our sin up until the moment we take our last breath.

As for the sins a person didn’t remember …I answered this way…

or any person who forgets sins commited …

In Luke 23:41 all the one criminal said was acknowledging guilt and expressing His believe in who Jesus is…

And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”

If you are concerned about any sin you may have forgotten, all you need to do is…

after any person says a prayer of confession to God similiar to the one I stated, At the moment immediately following the prayer that person soul is white as fresh fallen snow.

If a person dies at that exact moment they are heaven-bound because the prayer covered all unforgotten sin.

If you ask for ________ in Jesus name, you will receive.

Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:24

For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Matthew 7:8

fxcc…I hope that answered your concern.

A question you need to answer to God is "Do you, from the bottom of your heart, trust Him with your life and have faith in Him and Jesus Christ?.

Faith is not easy…Did you see my tightrope illustration?

Do you?

before you answer the question…reflect on this song …

because he lives
youtube.com/watch?v=MQBBihRwP8o

It help me in my times of struggles

God bless,

mpjw

Who said these words?

*“Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out **from thence **till thou repay the last farthing.” *(Matt 5:26)

What did He mean? What place (“prison”) do you reckon He was talking about?

What about these words:

*“If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” *1 Corinthians 3:15.

What fire is this (that will be used to save a man) ?

And again:

“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” 2 Machabees 12:46.

“And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver…” Malachias 3:3.

What’s all this “loosing from sin”, “refining”, “cleansing” and “purifying” mean?

Are these like things one might have to undergo to be totally spotless before entering heaven?

 

[fxcc]

fxcc…

A question you need to answer to God is "Do you, from the bottom of your heart, trust Him with your life and have faith in Him and Jesus Christ?.

Do you?

Faith is not easy…Did you see my tightrope illustration?

mpjw

Yes, I read your nice little tightrope illustration. You mean like I should accept certain things that God dictates by sheer faith alone and not by sight or because my little human intellect can figure it out? Right?

Like if Jesus said of bread “This is my Body” and of wine “This is my Blood, given up for you,” you mean I should believe from the bottom of my heart, trusting Him, that that is indeed what they were? That I mustn’t claim that He was having a figurative play around with words, that His clear words were literally true even though I found the teaching “hard”, and couldn’t quite see “how can this man can give us His flesh to eat?”. Wow, that’d be a tightrope moment, wouldn’t it? That’d require a great deal of faith, wouldn’t it?

Or if Jesus said “whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven” and if one of His Apostles confirmed that by saying "… confess your sins **to one another **… that you may be healed … " you mean I should go telling my sins to the Church - to another human being? Not just privately in Jesus’ ear? You mean when I sin I not only offend God, I also injure His Body the Church and therefore need to reconcile with both? How embarrassing! Fancy confessing my sins to another so that they can be “loosed on earth” and thereby “loosed in heaven”!!! Wow, that’d be a tightrope moment, wouldn’t it? What faith in Jesus’ words one would need for that kind of obedience! Is that the kind of faith you’re talking about?

Or like if Jesus says "… whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will **never **die… " you mean we should believe, based on Jesus’ assurace, that the saints who have gone before us, who have “lived and believed” in Jesus aren’t **actually **dead but live in Christ and are in communion with us, constituting, with us, a single, unified, living Body of Christ? Wow, that’d be another tightrope moment, wouldn’t it! I’d really be riding a tightrope on the Lord’s back with stuff like this, trusting that He knew where He was taking me, because He is God, wouldn’t I?



Okay, I gotta run… heaps of stuff to get done. (The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few!) God bless you for encouraging others to have faith in Jesus and His assurances. I’m sure that your faith too will grow with each passing day until one day you find yourself assenting in faith and obedience to **everything **that **God **proposes!

May the love of God, the grace of His Son, and the wisdom of His Holy Spirit descend upon you and remain with you always.

Francis

 

[jegow]

I was a Baptist, but have been attending a Catholic Church for the past 3 years. I really felt like the Catholic Church might be the true Church, but I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right? As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught. I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

I’m very confused about the whole dogma thing. Can dogma change? Can ex-cathedra dogma be wrong? Is my priest wrong? Is this just something that I’m not supposed to understand?

Also, am I the only Catholic that is hopelessly confused about this topic? I’ve looked for information about this, and all I can find is sedevacantist stuff, which has it’s own set of big problems. It seems everyone else I talk to (several other priests included) is satisfied with the explanation that 1900 years of beliefs have changed in the last 50 years. Am I the only one who is frustrated with this?

I can post some of the saints’ and Popes’ quotes if requested, but I didn’t want to make this post go unnecessarily long.

Can anyone help me, please?

Dogma doesn’t change - your pastor was wrong. He could have meant that the Church has strived to be come more ecumenical since Vatican II. Even so any ecumenical dialogue should always be done with the view that it is not putting aside differences but an attempt at helping those who are not Catholic to understand what their differences are and why they need to change so that we can maybe one day have them come back to the true fold. In other words, no salvation outside the Church means that we hold that we are the only Church that God instituted and that it is through it where salvation is accessible. Those who know this (free from ignorance) are bound to this truth. Those raised in other faiths who have not come to this realization are obviously not bound to it.

Hope that helps

 

[inkaneer]

thank you for pointing out one of many areas catholics anf non catholics disagree.
…interpretation of scripture we see it one way and you see it another.

Yes and that sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy until you connect the dots of Christian belief down the historical path of 2,000 years. So lets connect some dots shall we. One of the main arguments of protestantism is that christianity somehow lost its way and got perverted. Various dayes are proposed by various protestant sects but most claim that it occurred in the early fourth century with a guy named Constantine. He supposedly made Christianity the state religion and once that was done then the Roman mythology overtook the christian message only to be rescued by the so called ‘reformation’ in the 16th century that gave the world protestantism. So is this true? Scripture is always a good place to begin so lets start there. In Mt 16:18 Jesus says that He will establish a church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Some versions have ‘forces’ instead of ‘gates’. But regardless, the idea is one of the church being locked in a struggle with hell. But Jesus says that hell will never prevail over this church that He is going to established. Now let’s see what Jesus also says abut this church. In Mt 28:20 Jesus promises the Apostles that He would remain with them till the end of the age. The age is generally accepted as being the so called “Church Age” or that time until the second coming. But the Apostles would all die well before the ‘Age’ ended. The verse only makes sense if Jesus refers to ‘you’ as not being the Apostles alone but the church. Those people who would come after the Apostles. Jesus would remain with that church until the Age ended. Next we have in John 16:13 the promise of Jesus to the Apostles to send them the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth. I t would be mighty short sighted of God to provide this guidance only to the Apostles and not to those who came after them especially if this church was to prevail over hell and last till the end of the age. So this guidance has to extend beyond the time of the Apostles to succeeding generations. Now where is this church that Jesus established? Obviously it has to be here still if the promise of Jesus is true for the Age has not ended. But we have so many claiming to be that one church. How can we tell which it is? There is one sure way. That church established by Jesus must go back to Jesus through the Apostles to that first Pentecost which is generally accepted as the birthday of the church. Only one church claims to not only do that but can prove its claim. That Church is the Catholic Church. In this church then one can expect to find the fullness of the gospel because this church would be guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus stated. This church would never teach error because to do so meant that hell had succeeded in prevailing over the church and that was what Jesus said would never happen. None of the protestant denominations have a history that goes back more than 500 years. None of the protestant churches can claim they do not teach error for all have changed at least one of their doctrines. If we look at the historical testimony of those early christians as to what they believed we see they were very Catholic. None of them were sola scripturists. In fact the only people that were sola scripturists were called Judiacizers in the book of Acts for they wanted the Gentiles to be subject to the Old Testament Law. Even in the book of Acts we see the Church exercizing authority in the creation of deacons. Jesus never said a word about them. At the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles rejected the sola scripturist arguments and stated in Acts 15:28

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:”

They didn’t go to scripture but instead claimed a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. The OT law required worship on the seventh day but the Apostles chose to worship on the first day, the day of resurrection.

So the claims of protestantism are false. The church did not lose her way and become perverted. No where in any scripture passage in any translation version does it claim that Jesus said His Church would be sinless. The claims of protestants that the Church did this or that it did that and claiming the church sinned is not only false but quite stupid in my opinion. Sin is an act of man therefore only mankind can sin. The church is not mankind and although it is made up of people who are sinners the church itself cannot sin. The arguement is moot, however, as the promise of Jesus was that the church, guided by the Holy Spirit would not succumb to the forces of hell. The only way that that could happen is the church failed in its mission which was to preach the gospel to the world. And the only way it could fail to do that was to teach error which, according to Jesus it never would, and it never has. So when we get down to the interpretation of scripture the nice warm and fuzziness of “…we see it one way and you see it another” does not measure up. A christian is bound to follow that teaching that is the one guided by the Holy Spirit and that is only found in those doctrines that are taught by the Catholic Church. For no protestant denomination can be that church established by Jesus to which the promises were given. Does it matter? I think it does matter. Jesus also said in Mt 15:9 that there would be those who would teach as doctrines the precepts of men and in the process worship Him in vain. Sola scriptura, the basic, fundamental doctrine and foundation of all protestantism is indeed a doctrine of man. And the man is Martin Luther.

 

[Beth_Martin]

How can I be sure that when I die I won’t have any sins on my soul which I haven’t confessed (or **never had a chance **to confess) - sins, which therefore, have not been forgiven?

Do you think there might be lots and lots of people who die with some unforgiven sin or other on their souls? Is it probable in fact that most people die with some unconfessed/unforgiven sin(s) on their soul? If so, what happens to them?

There is no one that does not have unconfessed sins in their life even when they die. Some sins go unnoticed, especially the sins of ommission. However, Jesus covers all sins, not just some, but all the moment one sincerely put their trust in Him by faith to deliver one from the penalty of sin through His death burial and resurection.

Sin is a huge issue and I do not think most people really attempt to fully understand just how sin has effected the entire creation or just how much it effects our relationsshis with each other and with God. True repentance is a true turning away from the deeds of the flesh and turning towards God by faith and literally crying out to God to be merciful to the sinner. It just seems that we take the good without first recognizing how bad the bad really is before God. This is where the health & wealth gospel and the easy-believism gospel, which are both false gospels stem from. Taking Jesus as the Savior without treating Him as Lord of one’s life or the ruler of one’s life. This is why a running theme throughout Scripture concerning the warning to being self righteous, proud, or arrogant before the Lord will only bring condemnation even though you made a profession of faith, but the component of obedience to His Lordship is missing and thus it is a false profession of faith.

How we instill this need to really deal with our sins before God is missing in many churches teachings on the subject with any real depth and conviction. Many churches will not even breach the topic and some that do only do it at a superficial level.

Doctor Guthrie wrote, "Who is the hoary sexton that digs man a grave? Who is the painted temptress that steals his virtue? Who is the murderess that destroys his life? Who is the sorceress that first deceives and then damns his soul? It is sin. Who with icy breath blights the fair blossoms of youth? Who breaks the hearts of a parent? Who brings old men’s gray hairs with sorrow to the grave? It is sin. Who by a more hideous metamorphoses than Ovid even fancied changes gentle children into vipers, tender mothers into monsters and their fathers into worse than Herods, the murderers of their own innocence? It is sin. Who casts the apple of discord on household hearts? Who lights the torch of war and bares it blazing over trembling lands? Who by division in the church rends Christ’s seamless robe? It is sin. Who is the Delilah that sings the Nazarite asleep and delivers up the strength of God into the hands of the uncircumcised? Who winning smiles on her face, honeyed flattery on her tongue stands in the door to offer the sacred rites of hospitality, and when suspicion sleeps treacherously pierces our temples with a nail? What fair siren is this who seated on a rock by a deadly pool smiles to deceive, sings to lure, kisses to betray and flings her arms around our neck to leap with us into perdition? It is sin. Who turns the soft and gentlest heart to stone? Who hurls reason from her lofty throne, and impels sinners mad as gadarene swine down the precipice into a lake of fire? It is sin.

 

[paul_c]

Hi paul c

thank you for pointing out one of many areas catholics anf non catholics disagree.
…interpretation of scripture

we see it one way and you see it another.

I for one am willing to accept our differences and let God be God.
It is obvious that we can not both be right on a lot of issues between the churches

here our a few more

is the Host miraculously change to Jesus body?
does purgatory exist?
Does God want us to pray for the dead
Did Mary have other children after Jesus

as you I am sure are aware there are many more

Paul, as in my previous post,
I believe we catholics and non catholics can agree on certain facts.

I look forward to you to stating yes or no to my agreement questions in red

here it is again…

Its not about accepting our differences. There is one truth and we need to find it- our souls depend on it,after all.

What I showed you were direct biblical challenges to your beliefs. You will not be able to do the same with Catholics because the bible was developed by the Catholic church to teach what it had been taught by Jesus .

Let’s look at your 4 other differences from above:

is the Host miraculously change to Jesus body? Have you read John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

When coupled with the last supper discourses, can there really be any doubt about the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist?

does purgatory exist? Does God want us to pray for the dead
These two go together. Without purgatory there is no reason to pray for the dead. Afterall, those in heaven don’t need our prayers and those in hell will not benefit from them.
It is only those who are in purgatory cleansing their sins that benefit from our prayers. The reason that Luther and the other “reformers” did away with Purgatory in their theological view and why they sought to exclude 7 books of the old testament that related to it, was that they sought to eliminate the concept of the importance of personal sin in the economoy of salvation. Indeed, if sin is unimportant in a person’s salvation, there would be no reason to have a purgatory that to cleanse you of those sins. This really goes to the heart of the differences between the Protestant and Catholic view of salvation. Protestants believe that personal sin doesn’t matter - ll that matters is faith in the mercy of Christ. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that we must strive to be sinless to be saved. And while we know that no one is perfect, we know we can become closer to perfect through the grace available through the sacraments.

Did Mary have other children after Jesus this question comes up, only because people misunderstand the scripture. sure it references Jesus’s brothers, but you need to know that brothers and cousins were referred to with the same word. I can show you from scripture that those listed as Jesus brothers were in fact, his cousins.

Matthew 27: 55-56 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15: 40: There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

John 19: 25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala

Assuming all three witnesses are talking about the same three women, which is logical. You can see that the women, along with Mary, the motherof Jesus, were Mary Magdalene, Salome (Mary’s relative, husband of Zebedee and mother of James the greater and John) and Mary ( wife of Clopas and mother of james the lesser and Joses, called the brothers of Jesus). Clopas was Joseph’s borther.

 

[fxcc]

Hi all,

Sadly, I have communicated with catholics who argued with me that Jesus was not sinless.

mpjw

Wow, really? **Catholics **have been arguing with you that Jesus was not sinless? Has it occurred to you that someone who says that Jesus was not sinless is not even a Christian (let alone a Catholic), but a mouthpiece of Satan instead? Maybe you could encourage these particular “catholics”, if you’re still communicating with them, to seek out the services of an exorcist?

Sadly though, we all know of one man (a lapsed Catholic priest, actually!), who used to say all sorts of nasty and untruthful things about many good people - including, believe it or not, Jesus Himself! The guy died some 500 years ago, so, as a Catholic all I can do now is pray that God will have mercy on his soul.

Here are some of Jesus’ alleged “sins” which he listed, in course of spawning a worldwide movement known today as the Protestant faith.

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus, even Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” [Martin Luther - Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107]

It’s important to note though, that by the time this man began to openly spew such diabolically blasphemous “teachings” (shudder!!!) to his poor, deluded, unquestioning followers, he was not even remotely Catholic - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church had long since given him the boot for propagating heresies. The man was already “anathema”!

 

[Beth_Martin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Are you sure about that? I think it is covered quite well in the first chapter of Acts when Matthias was selected as Judas’ successor.

I agree as the term is defined as a “replacement” only.

Not so fast there lady. First of all, who said Matthias was an Apostle? Second, do you know what Apostolic Succession means? Apostolic Succession is the line of authority from the original Apostles down the centuries to the bishops of the church. It does not mean one Apostle succeeding another. As for Matthias he was no Apostle. He was a bishop. Scripture only says he was “numbered with the eleven Apostles” [Acts 1:26]. If he was made an Apostle shouldn’t Acts 1:26 say He was numbered with the twelve Apostles? And the cumbersome phrase “…was numbered with…” Why not just say he was made an Apostle, if, indeed, he was an Apostle? Also,** was Judas ever an Apostle? To be an apostle one had to be picked by God and sent. Judas was never sent. ** Neither was Matthias. In Acts 1:17 Peter says of Judas:

"17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.’ [Acts 1:17]

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. -----Acts 1:26

Numbered is equivilent to “added to” in the context of the verse and the reason it says to the 11 is because Iscariot was dead and no longer an Apostle so 12-1=11, which is why the Scripture says he was added to the eleven. It also means he was an Apostle as he was added to the 11; why else bother having God chose a replacement? Add to that the fulfilled prophecy in Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; Let another take his office." You worry me that you did not pick up on this.

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. -------- Matthew 10

Was Judas an Apostle? You said no, but the Bible say yes, so who is correct?

The same term “apostle” is used to describe Epaphroditus. ***“But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger *and minister to my need;” **------ Philippians 2:25

In general there are the “Apostles” usually termed by the phrase “apostle of Jesus Christ” and then you have all kinds of others that are referred to as more general “apostles” AKA “messengers”.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out —Here Barnabas is referred to as an apostle, but not in the context of Jesus Christ as I showed above.

and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them {to be} false; ------Rev. 2 Here Jesus warns of false “apostles”. So the term is used as specifi chosen by Christ and as general messengers.

Here you have false ones mentioned in the context of a “general messenger”. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

So Judas also was only numbered with the Apostles because he had, According to Peter, only obtained part of the ministry. The sending of the Apostles occurred at the time of the Great Commission after Judas died and before Matthias was elected. Paul is the twelfth Apostle as he was picked by God and sent to the Gentiles. Matthias’ claim to fame is that he was the first non apostle bishop. He would be followed by others like Timothy and Titus, Elvodius, Clement, etc. But Matthias is the first of the Apostolic Succession of bishops in the Catholic Church.

God chose the Apostles but men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit choose bishops.

The rest above makes no sense after corrections to your previous misunderstandings have been corrected in light of Scripture, so no further comment is warranted.

I strongly encourage you in love of God to work on comparing Scripture with Scripture to try to get the bigger picture and keep in mind that things will not be written a simply as we would like for them to because the writing are very old and the venacular was much different. If you have ever viewed the 1611 KJV, most people would really stumble trying to read because of the use and style of the language. We are blessed because many of the newer translations have the benefit of literally thousands of older manuscripts discoved in the past 100 plus years which have been methodically reviewed and understood to give us the benefit of some wonderful English translations like the NKJV, ESV, NAS, NIV and & RSV as examples.

 

[QuickCat]

You where there? How do you know he was the first to preach it? I am not sure we have a good account of what wach and every Apostle taught and to whom. Also was Paul then the 13th Apostle? Thought 12 Apostle were to Judge the 12 tribes of Israel

Yes, Paul was the 13th apostle. He was given the wonderful message of the gospel of the grace of God. Our LORD Jesus Christ chose Paul to reveal the Body of Christ. That Jews and Gentiles would become joint heirs in a joint Body with a joint promise. The 12 apostles ARE to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel - Mt. 19:28 on earth. James, Peter and John agreed to confine their ministry to Israel - see Galatians 2:7-9.

How do I know that Paul was the first one to preach the gospel of the grace of God? He says as much in his writings. He was given revelations about the Body of Christ directly by the LORD Jesus Christ. He says that these were not revealed in past ages, past generations, since the world began - Ephesians 3; Colossians 1; Romans 16:25-26.

 

[paul_c]

There is no one that does not have unconfessed sins in their life even when they die. Some sins go unnoticed, especially the sins of ommission. However, Jesus covers all sins, not just some, but all the moment one sincerely put their trust in Him by faith to deliver one from the penalty of sin through His death burial and resurection.

Sin is a huge issue and I do not think most people really attempt to fully understand just how sin has effected the entire creation or just how much it effects our relationsshis with each other and with God. True repentance is a true turning away from the deeds of the flesh and turning towards God by faith and literally crying out to God to be merciful to the sinner. It just seems that we take the good without first recognizing how bad the bad really is before God. This is where the health & wealth gospel and the easy-believism gospel, which are both false gospels stem from. Taking Jesus as the Savior without treating Him as Lord of one’s life or the ruler of one’s life. This is why a running theme throughout Scripture concerning the warning to being self righteous, proud, or arrogant before the Lord will only bring condemnation even though you made a profession of faith, but the component of obedience to His Lordship is missing and thus it is a false profession of faith.

How we instill this need to really deal with our sins before God is missing in many churches teachings on the subject with any real depth and conviction. Many churches will not even breach the topic and some that do only do it at a superficial level.

Doctor Guthrie wrote, "Who is the hoary sexton that digs man a grave? Who is the painted temptress that steals his virtue? Who is the murderess that destroys his life? Who is the sorceress that first deceives and then damns his soul? It is sin. Who with icy breath blights the fair blossoms of youth? Who breaks the hearts of a parent? Who brings old men’s gray hairs with sorrow to the grave? It is sin. Who by a more hideous metamorphoses than Ovid even fancied changes gentle children into vipers, tender mothers into monsters and their fathers into worse than Herods, the murderers of their own innocence? It is sin. Who casts the apple of discord on household hearts? Who lights the torch of war and bares it blazing over trembling lands? Who by division in the church rends Christ’s seamless robe? It is sin. Who is the Delilah that sings the Nazarite asleep and delivers up the strength of God into the hands of the uncircumcised? Who winning smiles on her face, honeyed flattery on her tongue stands in the door to offer the sacred rites of hospitality, and when suspicion sleeps treacherously pierces our temples with a nail? What fair siren is this who seated on a rock by a deadly pool smiles to deceive, sings to lure, kisses to betray and flings her arms around our neck to leap with us into perdition? It is sin. Who turns the soft and gentlest heart to stone? Who hurls reason from her lofty throne, and impels sinners mad as gadarene swine down the precipice into a lake of fire? It is sin.

Beth, you are going to convince yourself to becoming Catholic. You’ll see.This post was very Catholic, other than the first paragraph, which is inconsistent with the rest.

You see, we Catholics agree with you on the negative effects of sin. I see you are an adherent to the Lordship theology and that you believe that people who are not obedience to Jesus aren’t really redeemed. this is true. Yet, you persist in saying that you are saved when in fact, you could become disobedient at any point in your life and become one of those you claim have a false profession of faith. In fact, no one is saved unless they persevere until death.

Let me discuss briefly with you the catholic view of salvation.

We believe that when you are baptized, you gain the necessary grace (God’s essence within us) to be saved. This was made possible through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. But you need to stay in the state of Grace until death to go to heaven. You fall from the state of grace through mortal sin, when you deliberately turn your back on God. God is infinitely merciful, however, and will allow you to be reconciled to him through the sacrament of reconciliation By contritely confessing your sins to a priest (who stands in for Jesus), repenting, and doing penance, we regain our lost grace. If we die in the state of grace, we will go to heaven, although we may need to spend time in purgatory to make us truly holy and therefore suitable to join God in heaven.

We believe that the sacraments are essential to salvation. They are visible signs of our intentions. While it is absolutely true that God needs no visible sign, it is equally true that if we are not willing to make a visible sign of our intentions, then we are not worthy of him.

Ultimately, every person choses to be with God in heaven or to turn from God and spend eternity in hell. These choices are demonstrated by our actions, which are tangible, and not our words, which are empty without actions to back them.

 

[fxcc]

There is no one that does not have unconfessed sins in their life even when they die. Some sins go unnoticed, especially the sins of ommission. However, Jesus covers all sins, not just some, but all the moment one sincerely put their trust in Him by faith to deliver one from the penalty of sin through His death burial and resurection.

Sin is a huge issue and I do not think most people really attempt to fully understand just how sin has effected the entire creation or just how much it effects our relationsshis with each other and with God. True repentance is a true turning away from the deeds of the flesh and turning towards God by faith and literally crying out to God to be merciful to the sinner. It just seems that we take the good without first recognizing how bad the bad really is before God. This is where the health & wealth gospel and the easy-believism gospel, which are both false gospels stem from. Taking Jesus as the Savior without treating Him as Lord of one’s life or the ruler of one’s life. This is why a running theme throughout Scripture concerning the warning to being self righteous, proud, or arrogant before the Lord will only bring condemnation even though you made a profession of faith, but the component of obedience to His Lordship is missing and thus it is a false profession of faith.

How we instill this need to really deal with our sins before God is missing in many churches teachings on the subject with any real depth and conviction. Many churches will not even breach the topic and some that do only do it at a superficial level.

Doctor Guthrie wrote, "Who is the hoary sexton that digs man a grave? Who is the painted temptress that steals his virtue? Who is the murderess that destroys his life? Who is the sorceress that first deceives and then damns his soul? It is sin. Who with icy breath blights the fair blossoms of youth? Who breaks the hearts of a parent? Who brings old men’s gray hairs with sorrow to the grave? It is sin. Who by a more hideous metamorphoses than Ovid even fancied changes gentle children into vipers, tender mothers into monsters and their fathers into worse than Herods, the murderers of their own innocence? It is sin. Who casts the apple of discord on household hearts? Who lights the torch of war and bares it blazing over trembling lands? Who by division in the church rends Christ’s seamless robe? It is sin. Who is the Delilah that sings the Nazarite asleep and delivers up the strength of God into the hands of the uncircumcised? Who winning smiles on her face, honeyed flattery on her tongue stands in the door to offer the sacred rites of hospitality, and when suspicion sleeps treacherously pierces our temples with a nail? What fair siren is this who seated on a rock by a deadly pool smiles to deceive, sings to lure, kisses to betray and flings her arms around our neck to leap with us into perdition? It is sin. Who turns the soft and gentlest heart to stone? Who hurls reason from her lofty throne, and impels sinners mad as gadarene swine down the precipice into a lake of fire? It is sin.

I truly enjoyed this! You sure you’re not a closet Catholic? And a traditional one at that?

The only bit I don’t agree with is that any unconfessed sin or sin confessed with anything less than perfect contrition (especially outside of the sacrament of Reconciliation) is “covered” by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, in the sense that it’s automatically wiped away. It is Christ Himself who cautions us to “Go and sin no more”, meaning that our “healing”, received from confessing Him as Lord and Saviour, can be lost. *“I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” *(1 Corinthians 9:27)

Meaning that there is no convenient, all-encompassing blanket of Christ’s Blood under which a single “untreated” sin can be hid.

You’re right. The downplaying of sin and its consequences is so deadly dangerous. And yet, it has to be asked, what contribution has the blithe assurance of “once saved, always saved” made to that? If I’m already **guaranteed **salvation and heaven, why should I worry about sinning or bother to pursue holiness? Isn’t this precisely the rationale which prompted Luther to write:

“Be a sinner and sin boldly … No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

Martin Luther - Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Second, do you know what Apostolic Succession means? Apostolic Succession is the line of authority from the original Apostles down the centuries to the bishops of the church. It does not mean one Apostle succeeding another.

I apologize I missed this. I do have a vague understanding based on reading this Article.

I am assuming this is an accurate Catholic representation, but if it is not, then let me know. But based on this, there are a slew of errors in understanding.

For example in this paragraph: **"The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. **To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. "

This has nothing to do with Apostolic succession as much as it has to do with the qualifications of church leaders as shown in 1 Tim 3 and Titus and neither of these have anything to do with succession in the Roman Catholic use of the term.
1 Tim 3 and Titus give specific instruction of how to chose local leaders of the church in order to have mature Christians teaching sound doctrine and 1 Tim 5, shows how to rid thoses who have not been faithful to this.

The very next paragraph is not only not true but a clear distortion of the early church fathers way of determining truth from error. Common sense says you cannot count on the pedigree of the man but on the sound words of God, which is the test the early church fathers used and has been used because it is the Biblical pattern or formula laid out in Scripture in the pastoral letters.

**"The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases. "

This is the equivilent of saying that "the direction and tests that God has said were insufficient; that is fooloishness, non-sense, and lacks common sense and here you see the minimization of the authority of the Bible in favor of the opinion of men.

On the 4th paragraph and I will stop there, Mr Kelley is referring to Scriptures as the litmus test and he is correct, but somehow what this person said has been interpreted as the preservation being done by association and we know that Paul associated and appointed some that proved to be false, proved to be false on the basis of the truth of Scripture. Succession as you understand it does not exist in the Bible for God is the one who soveregnly puts all authorities over men wether in church or government or in the home and He does allow false teachers and corrupt leaders in government as we can easily witness and we can easily see in many churches. The problem today is we do not follow the Biblical models or formulas for chosing godly leaders and the result is the perversion of the gospel and scandals galore throughout history and I’m not speaking specifically of the Catholic church, but all churches.

So your church is built upon this “succession theory” and so be it; the issue of poor teaching within all of Christianity is the lack of folowing the Biblical model and the infiltration of ungodly leaders and a lack of willingness to enforce church discipline upon those that are not above reproach. It has always been this way and always will but God in His kindness and mercy will save a multitude despite all of it across all of Christianity.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Trying to create a strawman are you? The issue is, did the writings of Paul contain the full gospel? I said the writings of paul were rememdial and did not contain the entire gospel. If you go back to your post #520 you said this to me, “If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.” I then showed that Paul’s writing did not contain the beatitudes which are definitely a part of the gospel that Jesus preached. Now I am sure that Paul preached the beatitudes he just didn’t write about them. So obviously there is part of the gospel not contained in Paul’s writings.

No the beatitudes are not the entire gospel but they are part of the gospel. After all, Jesus preached them didn’t He?

You dodged the question; what is the gospel? It is very simple.
The beatitudes have more to do with how we must approach God to receive the “good news” and about how the Christian that has received salvation is to live it out; the Sermon on the Mount is the pennacle of Christian living and practice. D.L. Moody wrote a great book on the Beatitudes and I would recommend that to anyone of any Christian faith that wants a real indepth understanding of the beatitudes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkaneer
No, none of the scripture writers said there was more gospel. Of course though you do know that Jesus told the Apostles, as recorded in John 16:12:

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [John 16:12]

Once again you err. Jesus never said what it was that the Apostle could no bear to hear at that time nor doe the scripture say when they would be able to bear to hear it. It certainly was not that Jeus was going to Jerusalem to die as you claim because He already told them that. In John 11 when Jesus goes to raise Lazarus Thomas says in verse 16:

" Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him." [John 11:16]

Right before this Jesus was in Jersusalem and they tried to stone him to death and Thomas was saying okay, they tried to kill Him there and now He says He is going back to see Lazarus, so Thomas figured they would try to kill Him again when He showed up. This is not Jesus saying i must go to Jesrusalem to die. You do not even make an effort to see the text to get the context which is why you are continuing to misunderstand time and time again. Half of what you have written could have been avoided if you put forth a little extra effort in my opinion and I encourage you to do that to gain understanding which is to gain blessing.

**THEY KNEW!!! ** So this something else That Jesus did not tell the Apostles at that time and which is not recorded if He ever did tell them. What was their response? they did not come close to fully understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Our understanding of the Trinity does not come from scripture. It comes from the church in the fifth century. The Trinity is understood by christians [those who are trinitarian] both then and today in terms that come from Greek philospophy and not from scripture. Such things as essence as substance are totally foreign to the scriptures and Jewish philosophical thought.

Tell that to a Unitarian and you will be told otherwise. Actually our understanding of the Trinity comes not from the Scriptures although there are references to One God andFather Somn and Holy Spirit. But the scriuptures don’t tell us if the three are 1/3 God or wholely God. Our understanding came about as a result of the church correcting various heresies about Jesus and his wills, his nature , etc. Also about the Holy Spirit. But just redaing scripture one could think of one God with three modalities and be a Unitarian .

Well I have proved you wrong several times but you are too vain to admit it.

We could make the same argument about all that Calvin said TULIP. It was alawys in Scripture, but not put in terms that were easily identifiable which is different then adding something that was not there, but explaining something in terms that can be easily understood.

You have yet to prove me wrong on anything concerning the Scriptures but you have been corrected several times which you are unwilling to acknowledge pubically , but that is not important and is not profitable that either of us to speak in such terms; so let us both agree to refrain from doing so moving forward; okay?

May God bless you dear!!

Beth

 

[paul_c]

Yes, Paul was the 13th apostle. He was given the wonderful message of the gospel of the grace of God. Our LORD Jesus Christ chose Paul to reveal the Body of Christ. That Jews and Gentiles would become joint heirs in a joint Body with a joint promise. The 12 apostles ARE to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel - Mt. 19:28 on earth. James, Peter and John agreed to confine their ministry to Israel - see Galatians 2:7-9.

How do I know that Paul was the first one to preach the gospel of the grace of God? He says as much in his writings. He was given revelations about the Body of Christ directly by the LORD Jesus Christ. He says that these were not revealed in past ages, past generations, since the world began - Ephesians 3; Colossians 1; Romans 16:25-26.

Quick Cat,
there are many errors in this post. James did confine his ministry to Israel, but Peter and John did not. John moved to Ephesus in modern day Turkey, with the Virgin Mary and in revelations he addresses the 7 churches of Asia, not Israel. Peter was the universal leader of the church. Read Acts 15:
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

As you can see, he claimed jurisdictiion over the Gentiles and he was not debated. And Paul says that Peter is the Apostles to the circumcized as well in Galatians. As you can clearly see, this makes Peter leader of everyone, circumcized and Gentile alike.

You are clearly confused about what Paul was teaching. He was teaching the same Catholic faith as the other apostles. He said so in 1Corinthians 1:

10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[Beth_Martin]

Hi Beth!

I am following up on this because you had asked about it. If you’d like me to respond to anything else that you have written to me or to others, or someone else would like me to, I’ll do that too. Let me know!

That Jesus is the One Who baptizes inwardly when people baptize outwardly serves as the basis for the Catholic teaching that anyone can baptize. Thomas Aquinas wrote,

‘The man who baptizes offers but his outward ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use all men to whatever purpose He wills …] as Pope Nicolas I says, “the Baptism is not theirs,” i.e., the baptizers’, “but His,” i.e., Christ’s’ (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 67).

And Augustine taught,

“It may perhaps surprise you why it is said, that ‘Jesus baptized more than John’ (John 4:1); and after this was said, it is subjoined, ‘although Jesus baptized not, but His disciples’ (John 4:2). What then? Was the statement made false, and then corrected by this addition? Or, are both true, viz. that Jesus both did and also did not baptize? He did in fact baptize, because it was He that cleansed; and He did not baptize, because it was not He that touched. The disciples supplied the ministry of the body; He afforded the aid of His majesty. Now, when could He cease from baptizing, so long as He ceased not from cleansing? Of Him it is said by the same John, in the person of the Baptist, who says, ‘This is He that baptizes’ (John 1:33). Jesus, therefore, is still baptizing; and so long as we continue to be baptized, Jesus baptizes. Let a man come without fear to the minister below; for he has a Master above” (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

Have a blessed day, Beth!

For Your glory!
Pete

I agree with both accounts, the first is the expression used that water baptism is the owutward professionof an inward faith…very Protestant.

The second He is referring that Jesus did not water baptize, but baptized as John the Baptist said He would, with the Holy Spirit…again very Protestant. The problen is the misunderstanding of what these people are saying and they are dead on accurate and in accordance with Scripture and what I have been saying all along. I wish they were alive to prove it.

 

[paul_c]

I apologize I missed this. I do have a vague understanding based on reading this Article.

For example in this paragraph: **"The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. **To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. "

This has nothing to do with Apostolic succession as much as it has to do with the qualifications of church leaders as shown in 1 Tim 3 and Titus and neither of these have anything to do with succession in the Roman Catholic use of the term.
1 Tim 3 and Titus give specific instruction of how to chose local leaders of the church in order to have mature Christians teaching sound doctrine and 1 Tim 5, shows how to rid thoses who have not been faithful to this.

The very next paragraph is not only not true but a clear distortion of the early church fathers way of determining truth from error. Common sense says you cannot count on the pedigree of the man but on the sound words of God, which is the test the early church fathers used and has been used because it is the Biblical pattern or formula laid out in Scripture in the pastoral letters.

***“The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases. ***”

This is the equivilent of saying that "the direction and tests that God has said were insufficient; that is fooloishness, non-sense, and lacks common sense and here you see the minimization of the authority of the Bible in favor of the opinion of men.

On the 4th paragraph and I will stop there, Mr Kelley is referring to Scriptures as the litmus test and he is correct, but somehow what this person said has been interpreted as the preservation being done by association and we know that Paul associated and appointed some that proved to be false, proved to be false on the basis of the truth of Scripture. Succession as you understand it does not exist in the Bible for God is the one who soveregnly puts all authorities over men wether in church or government or in the home and He does allow false teachers and corrupt leaders in government as we can easily witness and we can easily see in many churches. The problem today is we do not follow the Biblical models or formulas for chosing godly leaders and the result is the perversion of the gospel and scandals galore throughout history and I’m not speaking specifically of the Catholic church, but all churches.

So your church is built upon this “succession theory” and so be it; the issue of poor teaching within all of Christianity is the lack of folowing the Biblical model and the infiltration of ungodly leaders and a lack of willingness to enforce church discipline upon those that are not above reproach. .

Beth,
The Gospel was passed on by word of mouth in the beginning for very practical reasons:

1. The books of the new testament had not been written
2. Even if it had been written, many couldn’t read.

So how did anyone know what to believe if it wasn’t written down? This is where Apostolic succession comes in. The Apostles were given their teaching authority by Jesus. Peter was made their leader to insure their was a common basis for the teaching. The Apostles gave authority to teach to trustworthy men. To demonstrate this, they were ordained bishops. These bishops were given the authority to name other bishops. The bishop of Rome was given authority over all other bishops to settle disputes. If significant questions arose, councils were called. the first of these, the council of Jerusalem was called in 49 AD and is described in Acts 15. The truth has thus been passed down for 2000 years from man to man, with ordination demonstrating that they were trustworthy.

Eventually, the teachings were written down in the form of the Gospels. to this was added the epistles, Acts, and revelation. It was codified in 382AD The criteria for inclusion in the bible was that the teachings had to be apostolic, had to be well know and had to be orthodox Catholic teaching as agreed in local council and validated by PopeSt. Damascus. He put St. Jerome in charge of converting the bible into Latin. His version, the vulgate was used for over 1000 years to teach the tenets of the faith

With the advent of the printing press, the bible became available to the masses, Arrogant men decided that they could read the bible on their own and understand what it meant better than those that had been trained in the truth by the bishops. These men, like Martin Luther, declared that each man , armed with a copy of the bible, could be his own authority, never acknowledging that by selectively choosing only those words and verses that appealed to them, men could make scripture say anything they pleased. In fact, Satan used scripture to test Jesus, did he not?

Jesus established a church to teach the Gospel and administer the sacraments for a reason. Unfortunately, there are many people who second guess Jesus on this, beleiving to their own detriment that they don’t need what he put in place.

 

[paul_c]

I agree with both accounts, the first is the expression used that water baptism is the owutward professionof an inward faith…very Protestant.

The second He is referring that Jesus did not water baptize, but baptized as John the Baptist said He would, with the Holy Spirit…again very Protestant. The problen is the misunderstanding of what these people are saying and they are dead on accurate and in accordance with Scripture and what I have been saying all along. I wish they were alive to prove it.

You are reading into this what you want to read into it. They are merely saying that the baptism has its basis in Jesus,not the person administering the baptism. That does not mean that bapitsm is not effective in providing life saving Grace. Thomas and Augustine were Catholic priests who strongly believed in the sacramental nature of baptism. This is not hard to believe, is it? They are afterall, numbered among the doctors of the Church. They would be appalled that you are trying to make baptism unimportant using their words. And they most definitely would not agree with you. Try actually reading their sermons.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I agree with both accounts, the first is the expression used that water baptism is the owutward professionof an inward faith…very Protestant.

The second He is referring that Jesus did not water baptize, but baptized as John the Baptist said He would, with the Holy Spirit…again very Protestant. The problen is the misunderstanding of what these people are saying and they are dead on accurate and in accordance with Scripture and what I have been saying all along. I wish they were alive to prove it.

Greetings, Beth!

Thomas and Augustine both believe that the grace of baptism can be received apart from the sacrament in extenuating circumstances, as all Catholics do. But, normatively speaking, this regenerative grace is bestowed on us when we are water baptized, and that is what they have under discussion in the two passages I provided. “Take away the water, it is no baptism” (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

What Augustine wrote in his commentary on John, and what Thomas was saying, was that when the minister of baptism applies the water, Jesus at that same time supplies His Spirit. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not think that you believe this. Unless I am mistaken, you believe that the water signifies what has already been bestowed. We believe that the sacrament bestows what it signifies.

If Augustine and Thomas were alive today, I have no doubt that they would be Catholic. Please spend some time with them and get to know them better.

With the love of Christ,
Pete