# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

???

Purgatory, alone, isnt’ an option, in Catholic Theology (or anyone else’s as far as I know).

Purgatory is just a stop at the Dry Cleaners on your way to the Pearly Gates.

I still don’t see your basis for assuming Hell not being a possibility if you ebrace a false “Protestant Gospel”.

Chuck

Chuck:

Good to hear from you! What i was drawing was a conditional statement. If the Evangelical gospel is the truth, and i trust in that gospel, then heaven is guaranteed (for that is what that gospel teaches). I’m not saying that is the truth, i’m saying IF that is the truth, then the result will be. Looking at the other side of the coin, if the Evangelical gospel is true, and i trust the Catholic gospel, then (according to the Evangelical gospel) i get hell as the result of placing my trust in a gospel that cannot save me. Again, i’m not saying the Evangelicals are correct. I’m just looking at the odds. The upshot is that if i don’t know what the truth is, the wisest thing to do is to play it safe and go back to being an Evangelical. Even if the Catholic gospel is true, i’ll still get Purgatory by putting my trust in the wrong place. See what i mean?

But what do you think, Chuck? Maybe it will help to compare notes. You define the Catholic gospel for me, and i’ll tell you what the Evangelical gospel is, and the two of us might be able to figure out which one is closer to the truth.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, P7, it is settled that Peter was the ***first ***to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit about the most important doctrine of the Catholic Church–namely, that Jesus was God in the flesh. What is not settled is whether Peter has a direct line of communication with God that the other Apostles do not have. Was Peter like Moses–being the only one to whom God would speak face to face? Or was Peter one of 12 Apostles who received such revelation?

I know you want to get right to the conclusion, but i want to think this thing through carefully. If i allow you to let me make a hasty decision to join the Catholic Church, it will be easy for someone to get me to make a hasty decision to leave Her once again. When i step foot in Her door, i want it to be for keeps, with no looking back. I want to be sure i’m making the right choice, because Wisdom’s sweet whisper tells me it’s the only choice i can make. Therefore, i want to fully consider one of your four points at a time, starting with (1).

:

Dear Soc,

 I guess you happened to write the second paragraph before reading my last post. :)

The question that will settle it for me is not whether Peter is the first Apostle to whom God spoke, but whether Peter had revelation that the other Apostles did not have. When i read these words of Paul, he seems to me to be saying that Peter is by no means the only Apostle who received wisdom revealed by God:I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 1:11-12)

If what Paul says is true, then doesn’t this mean that Peter is not the only one blessed with receiving direct revelation from God? Does not Paul, and perhaps the other Apostles, have direct communication from the mouth of God, too?

:shrug

Making a discovery, a breakthrough, is being the first to understand or get to know something. Isn’t it ?
I will never get a Nobel prize by learning what you realized first.
Petie, we concurred, had this primacy in realizing ( or making public, if you prefer) the foundational truth of Christianity. imho that can be seen as deserving in itself a gold star.

You may say: it is inconclusive of itself. Let’s go then to:
*
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. *

Another Nobel prize deserved by Petie.
He discovers by Revelation a new fundamental truth: that Gentiles coming to the faith have to be accepted and baptized just as jews are. Then he explains this discovery of his to the others. And they follow him. ( one could wonder why this issue was not clear to anybody after the Great Commission, but that is for another thread I suppose )

TBC

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Maybe this little detour might help clarify this… Its worth a try.

I agree with this, and the concept of a universal priesthood. But maybe we should ask the question, what makes one a stone, or more specifically, what makes Peter, or Peter’s confession, a rock?

You say the following about what keeps the stones together, calling it mortar.

But are the Gospels really the mortar or they the source of our being rock? And if they are the source of our rockness, then how so?
…

Before i can answer that, i should say that when i say the gospel is the mortar, i do not mean the gospels are the mortar. I’m thinking of the Gospel, as Paul puts it:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

(1 Corinthians 15:1-2)

So the gospel is not just the name of a book of the Bible, it’s a system of beliefs that saves us from hell, i presume.

That being said, i’m thinking mortar = metaphor for what holds people together. So the gospels, being the belief system that all Christians have in common, is the Faith that binds them together, in their relationships with Christ Jesus.

Rock, i suppose, would be a metaphor for the solid foundation on which this gospel (or Faith) is built. One might say it’s Peter and the papacy. Others would say it’s the truth of who Jesus is and what He accomplished. Some would say the Rock is Jesus Himself. Still others would say the Rock is all three, while others would say only two of the three. Me, i don’t know, for Jesus’ words are not clear, and i’m uncertain whether i can trust the Catholic Church.

What do you think? Or what question would you like to ask next?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

 I guess you happened to write the second paragraph before reading my last post. :)

Making a discovery, a breakthrough, is being the first to understand or get to know something. Isn’t it ?
I will never get a Nobel prize by learning what you realized first.
Petie, we concurred, had this primacy in realizing ( or making public, if you prefer) the foundational truth of Christianity. imho that can be seen as deserving in itself a gold star.

You may say: it is inconclusive of itself. Let’s go then to:
*
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. *

Another Nobel prize deserved by Petie.
He discovers by Revelation a new fundamental truth: that Gentiles coming to the faith have to be accepted and baptized just as jews are. Then he explains this discovery of his to the others. And they follow him. ( one could wonder why this issue was not clear to anybody after the Great Commission, but that is for another thread I suppose )

TBC

True, that! However, Paul has such revelations, himself. For example, Paul was the first to realize that circumcision should no longer be a requirement for God’s people. And we might go on all week, with me posting one great Nobel Prize of Paul for every prize of Peter. The point is not to say that Paul is any better. The point is to ask whether God revealed the truth to Paul through Peter, or whether Paul received revelation directly from God, without Peter as the middleman. The latter appears to be the case, in Paul’s case, and is the case for other Apostles, such as John, who received the Revelation from Jesus that he penned in the book by the same name. That means that Peter is not the only one to receive revelation, doesn’t it? His powers of perceiving God’s will are no better than those of the other Apostles; don’t you agree?

 

[clmowry]

Even if the Catholic gospel is true, i’ll still get Purgatory by putting my trust in the wrong place. See what i mean?

This is precisely the part I don’t get.

IF the Catholic Gospel is true, why do you believe putting your trust in the wrong place earns you Purgatory (and therefore heaven)?

I don’t think this is either Catholic or Protestant teaching.

If I understand your chart correctly, then you believe the only way people can go to Hell is if they are Catholic and the Protestant Gospel is correct.



Chuck

 

[pneuma07]

continuing

You then put forward IMHO two distinct issues: Paul and the other Ten.

On the letter I see nowhere any of the 10 blessed with momentous revelations of the sort Petie had.

If you stated something like “but perhaps they did have such revelations, as Peter”, it would be my turn in being interested in the *why *, ie the scriptural or logical motivation of such an opinion.

If OTOH you stated that they must have had some form of communication from God, that is another issue. I could not object to this idea of course. Which would be rather irrelevant to our case: ie establishing whether the revelations to Peter were outstanding.

---

Paul’s case is another matter.
Christ came to him some years after the Resurrection. He received part of the doctrine directly from the Resurrected One, and probably part from the Church. ( if you are of the persuasion that everything was from Christ i am not here particularly interested in opposing this view) Then he could build a prominent theological development. It was a different path than for the Twelve. St Paul is so extraordinary, that we have just lived a whole year (pauline year) proclaimed by the Church in his memory.

That does not mean to my poor knowledge that he received a new part of the Revelation, entering the world through him, to be added to what had been received by those who had lived alongside the Incarnated Logos.

Remember BTW that the Church of Rome is Peter … + Paul . . The more some protestant brothers extoll Paul, the more they extoll …Rome. ( that appears often lost). And I guess we’re going sooner or later to consider the position of the Church which is in Rome.
OTOH looking into the corpus paulinum itself you can find IMHO useful hints about Peter’s primacy.

I hope this can be helpful

Bless you
P7

PS Since you are dealing right now on our point 4) above, and on 1 Peter 3, you may want to express your reflections on part 4) of post 361 .

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This is precisely the part I don’t get.

IF the Catholic Gospel is true, why do you believe putting your trust in the wrong place earns you Purgatory (and therefore heaven)?

I don’t think this is either Catholic or Protestant teaching.

If I understand your chart correctly, then you believe the only way people can go to Hell is if they are Catholic and the Protestant Gospel is correct.



Chuck

Are you saying that everyone who is unsure the Catholic Church teaches the truth is condemned to hell?

 

[paul_c]

The spirit didnt only work through Peter. clearly all those in the room at Pentacost were speaking in tongues. And all the Apostles were able to heal and drive out demons, even before the resurrection, probably including Judas. Philips we are told in Acts, got a message to go talk to the Eunach and to convert him. Ananias, who was not an apostle, was commissioned by Jesus to hela and Baptize Paul in Damascus. John of course, recieved the Revelation of the Apocalypse.

The point is not that Peter was the only one to have the gifts of the Holy spirit. The point is that Peter was given leadership authority over the rest. You dont have to be the only one with insight or power to be the leader, afterall.

And Paul had three distinct missions in his life. First of all, he was the persecutor that became a witness for Christ. Secondly, he was a great missionary, spreading the gospel across the norther Mediterranean. And third, he was the first great Church Theologian, writing those letters filled with his theology to those he had converted. He was without a doubt one of the most important Saints and Apostles. But Paul wasn’t the leader of the Church. That was Peter. and you know that in Galatians, Paul discussed conferring with Peter first after his conversion and second 14 years later to make sure he had not and was not running in vain. You see, they had different skill sets. Peter was made to be the leader and Paul was made to be the theologian. They worked hand in hand and in 2Peter3, Peter sanctioned Paul’s letters as scripture.

 

[paul_c]

Are you saying that everyone who is unsure the Catholic Church teaches the truth is condemned to hell?

Socrates,

If you believe in the Protestant Gospel (whichever version you think applies) and the Catholic gospel is correct, you can still get to heaven if you follow the Catholic teachings. on salvation. This means that you are baptized and that you remain in the state of Grace by doing the will of God and avoiding mortal sin. However, if you do commit mortal sin, you will not have the Grace of the sacraments to reconcile you to God. this is a very great liability that should not be underestimated.

As for a Catholic being condemned to Hell for not following the Protestant Gospel, if it is correct, I still dont see your point. Catholics Trust in God and do good works out of love for him. Why would they be condemned for that. you are quick to condemn catholics to hell for not following the Protestant Gospel, but in reality they follow it and more.

 

[pneuma07]

True, that! However, Paul has such revelations, himself. For example, Paul was the first to realize that circumcision should no longer be a requirement for God’s people. And we might go on all week, with me posting one great Nobel Prize of Paul for every prize of Peter. The point is not to say that Paul is any better. The point is to ask whether God revealed the truth to Paul through Peter, or whether Paul received revelation directly from God, without Peter as the middleman. The latter appears to be the case, in Paul’s case, and is the case for other Apostles, such as John, who received the Revelation from Jesus that he penned in the book by the same name. That means that Peter is not the only one to receive revelation, doesn’t it? His powers of perceiving God’s will are no better than those of the other Apostles; don’t you agree?

Soc,

       i guess i have partially responded in my last  post, that  i was writing  to complete the previous one while you sent this one.

i of course subscribe that Paul received revelation directly from Christ, without Peter as a middleman.
And also that Peter is not the only one to receive revelation(s) , of course.

Your last sentence is the one which allows me to present my point again.

The foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and He is the Son of the living God, entered this world through Simon.

I guess we agree on everything I have written above.

Now the point i’m dealing with is the following one.
There is no parallel in this with any other follower … of the Son of the living God.
I cannot see that through other Apostles truths which are comparable to that one entered the world.

( BTW the great realization that baptised gentiles must not receive circumcision, builds, develops, on the “discovery” that there should be baptised gentiles, in the first place ).

Soc, i hope i understand your struggle with Petie’s uniqueness. You are considering the other most prominent splendid disciples of the Christ, you are considering that the shepherds were many …

Consider also OTOH the harmony between a fisherman being made the receiver of the foundational truth of Christianity , being called by the Lord “Rock” and the fact Jesus entrusted to this person His flock.

Doesn’t it all fit ?

In Christ
P7

 

[Thing]

Have you ever watched the movie Saving Private Ryan?

You need to fry the cabbage, possibly with a red onion and certainly use freshly ground black pepper, salt to taste.

 

[clmowry]

Are you saying that everyone who is unsure the Catholic Church teaches the truth is condemned to hell?

“Everyone” no, some, definitely, very many, most likely yes.

I think this rule of thumb applies to all belief systems (including Catholics).

Many will not be particularly pleased with their final disposition of their souls.

**Matthew 7:13: “**Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.”

Chuck

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

       i guess i have partially responded in my last  post, that  i was writing  to complete the previous one while you sent this one.

i of course subscribe that Paul received revelation directly from Christ, without Peter as a middleman.
And also that Peter is not the only one to receive revelation(s) , of course.

Your last sentence is the one which allows me to present my point again.

The foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and He is the Son of the living God, entered this world through Simon.

I guess we agree on everything I have written above.

Now the point i’m dealing with is the following one.
There is no parallel in this with any other follower … of the Son of the living God.
I cannot see that through other Apostles truths which are comparable to that one entered the world.

( BTW the great realization that baptised gentiles must not receive circumcision, builds, develops, on the “discovery” that there should be baptised gentiles, in the first place ).

Soc, i hope i understand your struggle with Petie’s uniqueness. You are considering the other most prominent splendid disciples of the Christ, you are considering that the shepherds were many …

Consider also OTOH the harmony between a fisherman being made the receiver of the foundational truth of Christianity , being called by the Lord “Rock” and the fact Jesus entrusted to this person His flock.

Doesn’t it all fit ?

In Christ
P7

P7:

It always helps me to draw a picture, so i’ve drawn two (hoping it will help twice as much!) for us to discuss. The first is my understanding of how Evangelicals believe doctrine is received by people from God, the second is my understanding of how you say Catholics receive revelation from God. Please let me me know if i’m misunderstanding the latter.





In the Evangelical view, there are only three ways for you or i to receive Christian doctrine from God:a. From the writings of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament

e. From Peter’s epistles in the New Testament

d. From Paul’s epistles and the other authors of the New Testament

What i understand you as saying about the Catholic view is that there is one more way (making four ways) to receive doctrine from God:a. From the writings of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament

e. From Peter’s epistles in the New Testament

d. From Paul’s epistles and the other authors of the New Testament

c. From the Apostolic successors of Peter (the writings of the early Church Fathers and the modern popes)
Some things worth noting: In neither view does the Holy Spirit speak new doctrine directly to you or i (f), and in neither view does Jesus Christ appear in bodily form to speak new doctrine to you or i or anyone (b), although i’m assuming you believe God does speak new doctrine directly to the modern popes. In the Catholic view, it seems Christian doctrine might be dynamic, today - for God still speaks through the current Pope (c). For the Evangelical, God is now silent, but His word still speaks for He has given us all we need in the words of Christ and Scripture given to us by Peter (e), and Paul and the other New Testament authors (d), as well as by the Old Testament authors (a).

Something else worth noting - and i think this is the new idea you are trying to teach me: Although Jesus spoke new doctrine to all of the Apostles while He dwelt among them, after His resurrection the only one to receive new doctrine was Peter, who passed it on to the other Apostles, who then passed it on to the Apostolic successors, who in turn passed it on to you and i (c).

Now, i’m not saying that God does not reveal His will directly to you or i and the Apostles, et. al about what they should do. But he appears to not reveal His will directly to you or i about what we should believe. So it seems there are two major differences of opinion about how God reveals what we should believe: Evangelicals say He revealed such doctrine to Peter and the other Apostles, but ceased to reveal anything new after these men passed away. I think you are saying that Catholics believe that after the resurrection, He revealed such doctrine to Peter alone (but not to the other Apostles), and after Peter passed away, He continued to reveal doctrine through the successors of the Chair of Peter up to this very day.

Am i understanding you correctly?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

Back to your original question(s):

I believe some of what Jesus said was deliberately ambiguous, because the writers of Sacred Scripture tell me that he explicitly said that was the case (i.e. The Parables.)

I also believe that Christ was very explicit in teaching the Apostles He would use to found His Church the underlying truth behind those same Parables (and the rest of the Gospel message) because that is what the Church who preserved his message tells me.

That said:

Isn’t the written (spoken) word always “made ambiguous” by the predisposition and intent of the reader (listener)?

Are you applying the same burden of proof for biblical interpretations that support Catholic theology as you are to those that you think refute Catholic theology?

Well, i did wreak havoc on my old favorite Protestant forum.

freedomandgrace.com/index.php?topic=11289.0

So, yes, i believe that anyone who refuses to admit ambiguity where it exists is either deceived or unwilling to consider the possibility.

Let us suppose for example that you (and Wilson) have been taught, and believe, that “Heaven is in the Sky.”

Your parents tell you heaven is in the sky, your friends agree heaven is in the sky, your church leaders tell you heaven is in the sky.

Then along comes some crazy Catholic who tells you that though we like to think of Heaven as “up above”, it is not a part of the physical universe at all but a state of being that lies beyond the physical universe.

Heaven is “Eternal life with God; communion of life and love with the Trinity and all the blessed. Heaven is the state of supreme and definitive happiness, the goal of the deepest longings of humanity”

You can find several hundred versus in the bible that “explicitly” refer to Heaven as being above the Earth and in the sky. People pointing towards heaven, smoke rising to heaven, people ascending up into heaven, fire coming down from heaven, the stars in the heavens……etc. etc. etc.

You can “prove” that the crazy Catholic is wrong.

I (frequently playing the role of crazy Catholic) can’t find a single “unambiguous” verse of the bible that explicitly says “Heaven is not part of the physical known universe”.

And you stand triumphant….

Yet, I doubt you would actually argue with the Catholic position on this subject, despite the hundreds of “ambiguous” bible verses to the contrary, because it is a position that has been adopted by you, your parents, your friends and your pastor, despite the fact that there are very many “ambiguous” bible verses that can easily be interpreted to say that “Heaven is in the sky.”

Chuck

Sounds reasonable to me, Charlie Brown. What’s your next premise?

http://lifesleftovers.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/charlie-brown-and-linus.jpg

 

[paul_c]

P7:

It always helps me to draw a picture, so i’ve drawn two (hoping it will help twice as much!) for us to discuss. The first is my understanding of how Evangelicals believe doctrine is received by people from God, the second is my understanding of how you say Catholics receive revelation from God. Please let me me know if i’m misunderstanding the latter.

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/god_speaks_evangelical2.png

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/god_speaks_catholic2.png

In the Evangelical view, there are only three ways for you or i to receive Christian doctrine from God:a. From the writings of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament

e. From Peter’s epistles in the New Testament

d. From Paul’s epistles and the other authors of the New Testament

What i understand you as saying about the Catholic view is that there is one more way (making four ways) to receive doctrine from God:a. From the writings of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament

e. From Peter’s epistles in the New Testament

d. From Paul’s epistles and the other authors of the New Testament

c. From the Apostolic successors of Peter (the writings of the early Church Fathers and the modern popes)
Some things worth noting: In neither view does the Holy Spirit speak new doctrine directly to you or i (f), and in neither view does Jesus Christ appear in bodily form to speak new doctrine to you or i or anyone (b), although i’m assuming you believe God does speak new doctrine directly to the modern popes. In the Catholic view, it seems Christian doctrine might be dynamic, today - for God still speaks through the current Pope (c). For the Evangelical, God is now silent, but His word still speaks for He has given us all we need in the words of Christ and Scripture given to us by Peter (e), and Paul and the other New Testament authors (d), as well as by the Old Testament authors (a).

Something else worth noting - and i think this is the new idea you are trying to teach me: Although Jesus spoke new doctrine to all of the Apostles while He dwelt among them, after His resurrection the only one to receive new doctrine was Peter, who passed it on to the other Apostles, who then passed it on to the Apostolic successors, who in turn passed it on to you and i (c).

Now, i’m not saying that God does not reveal His will directly to you or i and the Apostles, et. al about what they should do. But he appears to not reveal His will directly to you or i about what we should believe. So it seems there are two major differences of opinion about how God reveals what we should believe: Evangelicals say He revealed such doctrine to Peter and the other Apostles, but ceased to reveal anything new after these men passed away. I think you are saying that Catholics believe that after the resurrection, He revealed such doctrine to Peter alone (but not to the other Apostles), and after Peter passed away, He continued to reveal doctrine through the successors of the Chair of Peter up to this very day.

Am i understanding you correctly?

No. All Truth was revealed to the Apostles. There are no new doctrines that are delivered to modern popes. They are simply the custodians of what was already taught.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You need to fry the cabbage, possibly with a red onion and certainly use freshly ground black pepper, salt to taste.

Mmmm, cabbage!

http://images.nintendolife.com/users/peter/avatar.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The spirit didnt only work through Peter. clearly all those in the room at Pentacost were speaking in tongues. And all the Apostles were able to heal and drive out demons, even before the resurrection, probably including Judas. Philips we are told in Acts, got a message to go talk to the Eunach and to convert him. Ananias, who was not an apostle, was commissioned by Jesus to hela and Baptize Paul in Damascus. John of course, recieved the Revelation of the Apocalypse.

The point is not that Peter was the only one to have the gifts of the Holy spirit. The point is that Peter was given leadership authority over the rest. You dont have to be the only one with insight or power to be the leader, afterall.

And Paul had three distinct missions in his life. First of all, he was the persecutor that became a witness for Christ. Secondly, he was a great missionary, spreading the gospel across the norther Mediterranean. And third, he was the first great Church Theologian, writing those letters filled with his theology to those he had converted. He was without a doubt one of the most important Saints and Apostles. But Paul wasn’t the leader of the Church. That was Peter. and you know that in Galatians, Paul discussed conferring with Peter first after his conversion and second 14 years later to make sure he had not and was not running in vain. You see, they had different skill sets. Peter was made to be the leader and Paul was made to be the theologian. They worked hand in hand and in 2Peter3, Peter sanctioned Paul’s letters as scripture.

Perhaps you are right, PC. But P7 appears to be saying that Peter had a kind of revelation from God that Paul and John and the others just did not have. So i’m wondering what he means by saying that. My guess is that he is saying God guided the conduct of the other Apostles, but He revealed new doctrine through only Peter. That’s what i’m wondering. Let’s see how P7 responds to post 392.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,

If you believe in the Protestant Gospel (whichever version you think applies) and the Catholic gospel is correct, you can still get to heaven if you follow the Catholic teachings. on salvation. This means that you are baptized and that you remain in the state of Grace by doing the will of God and avoiding mortal sin. However, if you do commit mortal sin, you will not have the Grace of the sacraments to reconcile you to God. this is a very great liability that should not be underestimated.

As for a Catholic being condemned to Hell for not following the Protestant Gospel, if it is correct, I still dont see your point. Catholics Trust in God and do good works out of love for him. Why would they be condemned for that. you are quick to condemn catholics to hell for not following the Protestant Gospel, but in reality they follow it and more.

Well i was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a young man in the Catholic Church. Are you saying that if i avoid mortal sin i will go to Heaven, and go directly to Heaven, and not pass through Purgatory or have to pay $200.00?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. All Truth was revealed to the Apostles. There are no new doctrines that are delivered to modern popes. They are simply the custodians of what was already taught.

What about Peter? Do you believe, as P7 does, that only he received new doctrine after Christ’s resurrection? Or do you think that all of the Apostles were given pieces of the Catholic doctrine puzzle?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[paul_c]

Well i was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a young man in the Catholic Church. Are you saying that if i avoid mortal sin i will go to Heaven, and go directly to Heaven, and not pass through Purgatory or have to pay $200.00?

http://www.pimpyourfinances.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/monopoly-man.jpg

If you stay in the state of Grace after baptism, you will go to heaven but you may have to spend time in purgatory to become truly holy. But those that go to Purgatory are guaranteed heaven once they are purified.