What is the Catholic gospel message?

[swords99]

The Catholic church did not write the Bible. The modern catholic church as we know it today didn’t exist until after 300 AD. They have their Latin Vulgate but it is a translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is the author who moved the hands of the men as they wrote. Thanks to men like Wycliffe and Tyndale, we have the Bible in English.

 

[JustaServant]

The modern catholic church as we know it today didn’t exist until after 300 AD.

Evidence please.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic church did not write the Bible. The modern catholic church as we know it today didn’t exist until after 300 AD. They have their Latin Vulgate but it is a translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is the author who moved the hands of the men as they wrote. Thanks to men like Wycliffe and Tyndale, we have the Bible in English.

This is incorrect.

1. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the New Testament.
2. These men were members of the one Church of Christ.
3. The one Church of Christ called itself the “Catholic Church” as early as the first century as found in a letter written by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD which suggests that the term had already been in common usage for some time.
4. Therefore, the Catholic Church wrote the Bible and gave it to the world.

Not only did Catholics WRITE the Bible, but they preserved it, protected it, copied it, and preached it for 1400 years prior to the invention of the printing press.

This is superbly demonstrated in a short book available for free in full online:

WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE: OUR DEBT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By Rev. Henry G. Graham
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

I suggest you read this book…it will only take a couple of hours…and it will give you a lifetime of food for thought.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The modern catholic church as we know it today didn’t exist until after 300 AD.

The “modern” Catholic Church? Well, of course…the MODERN anything can’t exist except in recent years.

However, the ANCIENT Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, began calling itself “Catholic” at the end of the first century within the lifetime of the last of the living apostles.

As for the Constantine argument, consider:

Christians R Us
By Jack Taylor
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea3.asp

Christian History
catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

 

[JustaServant]

I hardly ever read the Bible. We had no Bibles in the church!

Catholics believe that the fullness of divine revelation consists both of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Christ founded a Church, which preceded Scripture. Scripture comes from the Church, not the other way around.
That doesn’t mean that Catholics don’t read Scripture. Every Catholic Church I have attended has had Bible Study. We read Sacred Scripture at every Mass–OT, Psalms, and NT. Personal reading of the Bible is encouraged by the Church. Saint Jerome, who translated a vernacular bible in the 4th Century, wrote that, for a Catholic, “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” We revere Scripture as an inerrant source of the teachings of Christ.

 

[JustaServant]

I was raised Catholic but left when I became an adult. I never once heard the necessity of being “born-again”, which the Bible clearly teaches.

“Born Again” Means Water Baptism

For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

To a man, the historic Christian Church was unanimously clear - to be ‘born again’ was to be washed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit in water baptism.

You either were not taught very well, or you weren’t paying attention.

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic church did not write the Bible. The modern catholic church as we know it today didn’t exist until after 300 AD. .

This is called revisionism… Mormons make this claim along with many Protestants and even atheists-pretending they know what the early Church was like-and it always agrees with their peculiar view of the faith. But anyone serious about truth can find that, while Catholicism can trace its roots back to the beginning, Mormonism, for one, goes back 150 years or so and Protestantism, Mormonism’s estranged parents, a few centuries more. Study more. Read history, the ECFs, and the bible with an open mind.

 

[JustaServant]

This is called revisionism… Mormons make this claim along with many Protestants and even atheists-pretending they know what the early Church was like-and it always agrees with their peculiar view of the faith. But anyone serious about truth can find that, while Catholicism can trace its roots back to the beginning, Mormonism, for one, goes back 150 years or so and Protestantism, Mormonism’s estranged parents, a few centuries more. Study more. Read history, the ECFs, and the bible with an open mind.

You know, years ago my favorite western writer Louis L’amour was asked by someone: “how do any of us really know what happened in the old west, isn’t it all interpretation?”
Flabbergasted by the question (yes Virginia, there ARE such things as dumb questions), L’amour simply answered that we have written histories written by people who lived at the time, letters, newspaper accounts. We don’t need to ‘make things up’, we KNOW what happened.
We have the writings of the ECFs, Church decrees, even pagan secular sources. Unless one CHOOSES to be blind, he has no excuse.

 

[JustaServant]

Where in the Holy Bible does it say works or baptism saves?

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul said he was glad he was not called to baptize, but to preach. Paul also said he had preached the entire Gospel. If baptism is necessary for salvation then why didn’t Paul preach baptism? Why didn’t he baptize everywhere he went preaching? Either Paul was disobedient by only preaching half the Gospel, or baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.

Of course, we know that Paul did baptize some believers, but that he saw his primary ministry as being that of preaching.

Was Billy Graham only preaching half the gospel simply because he never settled down to pastor a church? Did Billy baptize the thousands who “accepted Christ” at his revivals? Did he marry them? Did he share in the Lord’s Supper with the believers that he “won for Christ”? No, he was clearly called to be an evangelist…not a pastor.

Similarly, Paul spent his life on the road (and on the run in some respects). He appointed pastors, bishops, who administered the sacraments including baptism, marriage, etc.

 

[Thing]

If the Catholic Church is THE church founded by Christ Himself, then where did Jesus ever teach that we are to put traditions before or on par with Scripture?

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

This is something you cannot do; for as soon as you abandon the Church you must equally abandon what the Church has learnt by word of mouth.

Jesus quoted Scripture often and rebuked the pharisees for ritual keeping and legalism. Where is it taught that we must confess our sins to a man (priest)

16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

when confession and prayer are to be directed to God alone.

Confession is a sacrament; Jesus is present in the confessional in that sense.

When did Christ ever teach praying to saints long since dead?

Christianity teaches that people do not die; 25 Amen, amen I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.

Praying to the Saints equals asking the Saints to pary to God With you and for you or for anyone else for that matter. Prayer to the Saints = asking, in this context. As St. Paul asked you to pray and interceed for all men.

These are things that need to be closely looked at and addressed. The Bible needs to be closely examined. If such traditions are not taught in our Scriptures, then they must be abandoned.

The Apostles taught the Church; when they could not visit the Church in some region to teach in it they would write to it instead. Their letter, or epistle, would be read out in the Church in their stead. The epistles are part of the Tradition the Apostles taught the Church.

Someone on here wrote that protestantism didn’t exist before 1500, but what they fail to understand is that protestantism wasn’t some “new” faith.

To convince yourself of this you must find extra-biblical evidence or a HISTORY OF PROTESTANT DOCTRINES 33 ad - 1500 ad; otherwise you are just fooling yourself with wishful thinking.

It was a protestation against a church that had gotten too big and powerful and had strayed from the simplicity of the Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Jesus command to the Apostles was to go teach all the nations baptising them in the name of the Father, Sonand Holy Spirit.
Do you know how big the world is? To establish a Church which can consistently teach the same truth to the entire world until the end of time? Such an endevour quickly becomes well organised. It would be very stupid and irresponsible to allow any and every hairy herbert to put peoples souls at risk by giving all sorts of different personal interpretations. Interpretation of Scriptures was so important, in fact, that St Philip APPEARED out of thin air for the sole purpose of EXPLAINING the Scriptures to the eunuch; 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

What happened is that the CC had fallen into waters of errors.

Do not forget that the very first Christians were not exempt, any more than you are, from falling into errors. Judas, an apostle, betrayed Christ; St. Peter disowned Christ; it was, however to the Church Christ established which He gave His promise to guard and guide.
The CC as many say is a hospital for sinners, and like the Apostles and yourself, the members of this Church need constant help and the Church itself is constantly reforming itself from within, e.g. through men like St. Francis.

They were profiting from the sale of indulgences

Indulgences were abused by some; but, this was not why Luther protested; as when the abuses were corrected in the Church he declined 3 offers to meet and return to the Church. Luthers motives lay elsewhere.

and sins were being absolved for those who could afford to pay.

Someone has told you a lie here. Why accept these lies unquestionly.

These and other things led Martin Luther to break away and nail his thesis to the church door. There was a catholic (universal) church already in existence at the beginning but it was not the catholic church of today.

Yes it was. We know this because we have a history [written].

The modern Catholic church came into existence sometime after 300 AD.

The term “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”

And occurs more than once in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they “cannot be received in the Catholic Church”.

And a little later, Clement of Alexandria [died around 215 ad] speaks very clearly. “We say”, he declares, “that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith”

Protestantism was not a “new” faith, but rather revisions were made because of unscriptual things being taught and practiced in the CC.

All these ‘things’ were believed and taught since the Apostles; then suddenly rejected - why?

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling.

Households were baptised. Households are for families and families have infants, and households were baptised including infants and all.

They never taught prayer or worship were to ever be directed to Mary.

The prayer to Mary again is asking Mary to ‘pray for us’ no different to St. Paul asking you to pray for all men. The words of the Hail Mary are the words you read in your Bible every day, beginning with the greeting by the angel ‘Hail, full of grace…’

 

[Thing]

Reform was necessary

The Catholic Church is constantly being reformed. But one cannot reform the Church by leaving it. One must remain within it and help it frm within when it needs help.

and the Holy Bible needed to be in every home.

The Holy Bible was read out at Mass to both the literate and the nonliterate every Sunday.

It needed to be read by the farmer as well as the housewife…everyday folk, not just members of the clergy.

Farmers had to sacrifice their sons to the priesthood when they were sorely needed on the farms; Why? So that the farmers sons could be educated and become literate and return to his community and teach the faith contained in the bible to people who neither had the money nor the time for schooling themselves.

People could not remain ignorant. People perish when there is lack of knowledge.

Which is why the CC produced scholars throughout its history, and does not now sell ‘preachers degrees’ on the internet.

The CC had too much power and it needed to be in the hands of the people.

Ah…it is just power you want.

If we do not know what the Scriptures teach, then how can we know if what is being preached to us is even scriptural?

A large part of the Mass is given over to readings from both the Old Testamen and the New Testament. The Homily is then based on the Scripture read that day.

The CC at that time frowned upon individual interpretation of Scripture, and it was this very monopoly that the Reformers protested against.

St. Peter warns against unwise interpretations. The Catholic Church sticks to the Traditional interpretation they received from the Apostles through the Church.
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction

I was raised Catholic but left when I became an adult. I never once heard the necessity of being “born-again”, which the Bible clearly teaches. I hardly ever read the Bible. We had no Bibles in the church! I was never taught that only God can forgive sins. Jesus never played a major role in catholic teaching. I never even knew Him all those years I attended mass and religious instructions. I never even knew how to pray in my own words as I was accustomed to chantings.

Jesus is present in the Eucharist; which is the very center and reason for the Mass.

Catholics pray the Our Father mostly in preference to praying in their own words at once because His words are fine and because our words might allow errors to creep into our prayers.

I’ve had Mormon missionaries come to my door telling me they are the one true church because they have apostolic succession. The Catholic church claims the same thing. I have since realized that it is not a church ( i.e. religion), but a relationship with Jesus Christ that is of the utmost importance. .

The Mormons have no recorded history.

The Church (bride) of Christ is made up of believers everywhere

Except those in the Catholic Church ?, which is why you left.
But tell it to the Church; if you can find it.

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where is it taught that we must confess our sins to a man (priest) when confession and prayer are to be directed to God alone.

Confession and Forgiveness of Sin via the Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?

Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Here the author of Hebrews instructs us that the Old Testament prefigures and foreshadows New Testament truths; the Old is revealed more fully in the New. This seems to suggest that the role of the priest (ie, making atonement) as described in Leviticus should reveal something to us about the New Testament priesthood. So, what does the New Testament teach us about confession of sin?

1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said,"Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed?

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When did Christ ever teach praying to saints long since dead?

Praying to “Dead” Saints Proved From Scripture

1. Jesus teaches from the Old Testament

“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

In this teaching, Jesus tells us plainly that the Father is the God of the living.

2. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by parable

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”(Luke 16:19-31)

In this parable, Jesus has two of the “dead” characters in his story talking with one another, and one of the “dead” men intercedes on behalf of his living relatives.

3. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by personal example

“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matthew 17:1-3)

At the transfiguration, Jesus was talking with two “dead” people, Moses and Elijah. They’re actually alive, though.

4. Speaking to the dead – Peter teaches by example

“Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive.” (Acts 9:40-41)

5. Those in Heaven Hear Our Prayers - John teaches through prophetic revelation

“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)

The 24 elders in heaven are men, and notice that they each have a golden bowl full of the prayers of the saints. That’s us since we’re all saints! So, how did they get hold of our prayers in order to offer them to God?

“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3)

Here, an angel also offers our prayers along with incense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was raised Catholic but left when I became an adult.

I was raised Protestant and became Catholic when I became an adult. So what?

I never once heard the necessity of being “born-again”, which the Bible clearly teaches.

You were born again when you were baptized as the Bible clearly teaches.

I hardly ever read the Bible.

Whose fault is that?

We had no Bibles in the church!

You heard the scriptures read at every mass.

I was never taught that only God can forgive sins.

Only God can forgive sins. However, He has chosen to use the priesthood as the normal MEANS by which we are reconciled to God and to others. This is God’s sovereign choice.

Jesus never played a major role in catholic teaching.

Right. This is why the Church reads the gospels at every mass, why we celebrate the Lord’s Supper every mass (as opposed to occasionally as is customary in Protestant churches), and why there is a large crucifix displayed prominently in EVERY Catholic Church. Jesus is being de-emphasized through all of this.

I never even knew Him all those years I attended mass and religious instructions. I never even knew how to pray in my own words as I was accustomed to chantings.

Again, whose fault is this? Clearly, you misunderstand the value of chanting the Psalms as meditative prayer to God.

The Church (bride) of Christ is made up of believers everywhere.

In this church, is doctrine important? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable?

I ask because in your “church”, one believer accepts that infant baptism is okay while another does not. In your “church”, one believer holds that baptism is regenerative while another does not.

So much for the (Protestant) unity that Jesus prayed for…

 

[Mick_Taylor]

From your responses, it seems that NO answer would suffice, right? There’s no Church that anyone could PROVE to your satisfaction was founded by Jesus. Right? What if any criteria would satisfy you? I don’t think any exist that would meet your standards. Thanks.

Hi diggerdomer,

I agree, there is no church that anyone could prove to my satisfaction was founded by Jesus. The church Jesus founded certainly still continues to exist, but the individuals who are part of that church belong to Jesus by grace, through their God given faith. If being an adopted child of God and an heir to His kingdom is something that lends itself to rock-solid proofs then there would be no faith and no need for faith.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

How do you know that the bible is Gods word?

I can only “know” this by faith in God.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

It’s not “grace alone”. It’s not “faith alone”. It’s my faithful co-operation with God’s grace with all the helps that He gives me, chief of those helps being Holy Mother Church. Neither “grave alone” nor “faith alone” is Biblical. They are not what the Church has always taught. And therefore, they are not what I accept. I accept the Gospel of Christ, which is held and taught, full and in entirety, by the Church which He founded.

Hi Disciple96,

If I understand you correctly, God is trying to save everyone, and God has made His grace for salvation available to everyone, more or less equally. But not everyone is equally faithful in terms of their own cooperation with God’s grace–only those who are sufficiently righteous in their cooperation with grace will attain salvation. But this makes God passive in salvation. In this scheme, God only makes salvation POSSIBLE for all of us; but He doesn’t actually save anyone. And why shouldn’t people boast of their own righteousness if, in the end, they were saved because of their own righteous cooperation with His grace? It is possible that I’ve misunderstood what you are saying. If so, my deepest apologies. I view Jesus as active in my salvation–as He was in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus) and not merely a passive god who has only made salvation some sort of possibility for me…if I cooperate well enough.

 

[fhansen]

I can only “know” this by faith in God.

And the gift of faith support logic and history in our understanding of the CCs role.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Of course!

How does one know the CC is the one founded by Jesus?

By a simple process of elimination!

Protestantism ceases to exist before 1500 AD. => the Church founded by Jesus is not ‘protestantism’.

Hi Thing,

This is a very simple, neat, and tidy view of history. My own view is slightly more complex and not very neat or tidy at all. Jesus sometimes used the image of a vine and the branches to signify our connection to Him or our separation from Him. Throughout OT history the Jews continually wandered away from the Lord. When Jesus preached on the earth most Jews rejected Him and eventually crucified Him. It is only the CC that seems convinced that old branches never get cut off, and new branches never get grafted into the vine. The CC view of history is very simple, tidy, and convenient…until you read the bible.