Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
of course few outside of Rome itself knew that. What you define as a global Pope was actually a Bishop of Rome & claims of Roman authoritative supremacy dating back this far are fictitious.
Actually, it is quite possible that Peter was not the bishop of Rome. It would be very hard to shepherd a flock while imprisoned.

The authoritative supremacy of Peter comes from the mouth of Christ, and will only seem fictitious to a person who denies His words. Jesus gave Peter a specific ministry.

It is also clear from the early writings that the position of Peter among the Apostles was well understood all over the world.
The greatest reformers began as Catholics i.e. Luther, Calvin.
Just goes to show what happens to a person who falls from grace.
Half of Germany wound up becoming Lutheran (and nearly all of Scandinavia). All of their churches and clergy were Catholic. Bishops right down to priests broke from Rome, all properly ordained by laying of hands in Apostolic succession, etc.
Apostolic Succession does not prevent individuals from falling into error.
Moreover, how does the rest of the Protestant world, who sprang from the original reformation somehow lose its connection to the Apostles. Haven’t we lived in the same Christian world as Catholics? The claim is ridiculous at this point.
When the Holy Writings were separated from the Sacred traditions that produced them, things went from bad to worse, and continue to do so.
This is just political hogwash with no basis in fact or Scripture. Rome tries to scare protestants into thinking we’re not in succession, the Roman boogie man.
Why would this scare anyone, since Protestants dont care about it? How can a person be afraid of something that has no meaning or value to them?
Well, the Romans are dead; and they ain’t coming back? Caesar is now Bush, and will hopefully be McCain in a few months.
Does this mean you will stop all the baseless blaming of things you don’t like on “Rome”?
 
The distortion is not on my end but yours. It is you who have added to the passage not me.
We understand the meaning of the writings because we read them through the lens of the Apostolic Teaching. The Writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Traditions that produced them.
Then show me other passages that specifically support your claims?
I think it might be better if you stick to the elementary matters, before you try to move on to the more advanced. It is clear that the lack of an accurate foundation makes it impossible for you to understand.
This does have its place. However, what John 17:21-23 is quite specific and it makes no mention of what you claimed.
Yes, and the Apostolic Teaching that produced it are also very specific.
The Bible is the inspired-inerrant Word of God that deals with a lot of different issues.
Yes, but it was never intended to be complete, or to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that Produced it.
What guides you on this matter of context? How do you know if you have the correct interpretation of a passage?
The teaching authority that Jesus appointed is our guide. We know we are correct so long as we are not contradicting His teaching that has come down to us through the Apostles.
Code:
If so, what is your specific source that tells you your interpretation of John 17:21-23 is the correct one and mine is false?
It is very difficult to correctly interpret the writings when one is separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them. 🤷
What do you mean by “all those who wish to be protected from falling must get included in the prayer for Peter” from John 17:21-23?
Jesus tells the Apostles that Satan has demanded to sift them all. Yet, He then tells Peter that He has prayed for him (not all). He tells Peter that, after he has been restored, he should strengthen his brethren. Those who are willing to be included with Peter in the prayer, and to allow Peter to strengthen them, will also be protected from getting lost.
Where can these “one whole set of beliefs” be found?
Acts 2:42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The set of beliefs that have come to us from Jesus are found in the Apostles Teaching. Some of this is found in Scripture. The rest is found in the Catholic Church.
 
Actually, it is quite possible that Peter was not the bishop of Rome. It would be very hard to shepherd a flock while imprisoned.

The authoritative supremacy of Peter comes from the mouth of Christ, and will only seem fictitious to a person who denies His words. Jesus gave Peter a specific ministry.

It is also clear from the early writings that the position of Peter among the Apostles was well understood all over the world.
I agree with Peter’s commission by Christ, I just disagree with your rendering of it.
Just goes to show what happens to a person who falls from grace.
I believe the reformation to have been an act of divine providence.
Apostolic Succession does not prevent individuals from falling into error.
Hard to disagree with you here.
When the Holy Writings were separated from the Sacred traditions that produced them, things went from bad to worse, and continue to do so.
In what way? Can you show how the RCC produces better Christians than Protestant churches?
Why would this scare anyone, since Protestants dont care about it? How can a person be afraid of something that has no meaning or value to them?
Some protestants denominations take a view similar to the RCC with regard to AS … my own does not but some do.
Does this mean you will stop all the baseless blaming of things you don’t like on “Rome”?
I’m not sure what you mean? My overall opinion is that any critique of the Latin Church is considered an attack rather than simply disagreement & opinion. For the most part I’m defending against an onslaught of heavy anti-protestant bigotry on this board, and am not the purveyor of bigotry. Half my family is Roman Catholic … I love them, like them, but disagree with their religious views, end of story.
 
I think that I hear the angels singing…😃
youtube.com/watch?v=pF8oBdvvTVQ&feature=related
Well, if Jimmy wants to become an Anglican, it should be because he truly seeks communion with +Cantuar and wishes to be part of a spiritual tradition that can trace itself back to Pope Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury and trace its liturgy back to the Pre-Reformation Latin/Sarum Rite and Early Church liturgies, and also because he agrees with the foundational theology of course. 🙂

Although, from a more traditional Anglican perspective, there really should be no impetus to try and ‘convert’ (terrible term…I know) Roman Catholics into the Anglican Communion. After all, we believe Roman Catholics have valid Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession and Sacraments.

Of course, if Jimmy does want to join the Anglican Communion, I can help him look up who the Bishop is in his area so he can be Received (not re-Confirmed no such thing as re-Confirmation or re-Baptism…his Confirmation as a Roman Catholic would be viewed as valid).
 
Well, if Jimmy wants to become an Anglican, it should be because he truly seeks communion with +Cantuar and wishes to be part of a spiritual tradition that can trace itself back to Pope Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury and trace its liturgy back to the Pre-Reformation Latin/Sarum Rite and Early Church liturgies, and also because he agrees with the foundational theology of course. 🙂

Although, from a more traditional Anglican perspective, there really should be no impetus to try and ‘convert’ (terrible term…I know) Roman Catholics into the Anglican Communion. After all, we believe Roman Catholics have valid Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession and Sacraments.

Of course, if Jimmy does want to join the Anglican Communion, I can help him look up who the Bishop is in his area so he can be Received (not re-Confirmed [no such thing as re-Confirmation or re-Baptism…his Confirmation as a Roman Catholic would be viewed as valid).
The ultimate act of faith is believing Christ is the head of the church and no tradition can trump that.

It’s funny while Anglicans accept RCC holy orders they do not accept yours (although oddly they do accept the Eastern Churches orders)? My former church, the UMC (Methodist) also felt they had valid orders. However, this seemed like a stretch to me since Wesley was only a priest and not a Bishop (and the circumstances did not seem to meet the clause allowing for an exception in exigent circumstances).

Frankly, none of that ever really did matter for me (I’ve always intuitively felt the whole view of AS was faulty). Once I truly began Bible study in a serious way (after finishing law school) I simply came to agree with John Calvin and to a lesser extent Luther.

The presentation of the economy of salvation by most churches frankly seems faulty. It’s not that I actually think it matters what theological perspective one holds. However, once I discovered the soundness of Calvin’s theology my view of AS logically followed.

After all if the soteriology of a church is not uniform or in complete synthesis with Scripture then they cannot lay claim to infallible teachings, and thus the lynch pin for AS fails.

The RCC as an example is not uniform in its soteriology (some are Thomists while others Molinists).

The bottom line is most denominations do not take the idea of predestination to its only logical end. We are saved by grace . . . not of ourselves. We were predestined by eternal decree (before the founding of the world). These two unambiguously explained truths (reverberated throughout the New Testament with ample support in the Old Testament) are poorly understood by most.

If God chose you and I before creation; and on account of any personal merit, then ultimately our free will can have nothing to do with it. God chose all sorts of men throughout history, including killers. God chose Jacob over Esau and Jacob was hardly a saint.

An idea I hear often that I find the most objectionable is that God could not have decreed rebellion or wickedness. The devil does not act unilaterally, apart from the divine will. To say such a thing imagines a dualism that is clearly rejected by Scripture. God is good yes, in Him resides no evil. However, expressions of His good will has included destruction of cities and even the entire earth. God also acts through secondary agents (just read the book of Job).

Think about it – if God elected us from the founding of the world, always created a world for Christ, then even the fall of man must have been by decree. God created us good. In fact badness is merely corrupted goodness (as the famous Anglican C.S. Lewis explains). However, corruption of our goodness was no cosmic accident, God is never surprised. Even the rebellion of the devil was no accident. Indeed all of this were necessary elements of the divine plan.

Calvin just makes too much sense to ignore.

We learn that those who believe will not be condemned, but those who do not are condemned “already” (a past tense act). Many think that God could not have created people just for condemnation; while at the same time agreeing that God elected people for salvation (while the rest will be condemned). This notion is just absurd? How can it be said that God chose one group of people for one thing to the exclusion of the other, without saying He decreed the other group to be excluded from that thing?

Proverbs 16:4 tells us explicitly that God created even the wicked for a purpose (the day of evil). So indeed not only does God do this, He clearly tells us He does. So much of the Christian religion I hear people telling me about is the Christian religion they wish existed – not the one that truly exists.
[/quote]
 
The ultimate act of faith is believing Christ is the head of the church and no tradition can trump that.

It’s funny while Anglicans accept RCC holy orders they do not accept yours (although oddly they do accept the Eastern Churches orders)? My former church, the UMC (Methodist) also felt they had valid orders. However, this seemed like a stretch to me since Wesley was only a priest and not a Bishop (and the circumstances did not seem to meet the clause allowing for an exception in exigent circumstances).

Frankly, none of that ever really did matter for me (I’ve always intuitively felt the whole view of AS was faulty). Once I truly began Bible study in a serious way (after finishing law school) I simply came to agree with John Calvin and to a lesser extent Luther.

The presentation of the economy of salvation by most churches frankly seems faulty. It’s not that I actually think it matters what theological perspective one holds. However, once I discovered the soundness of Calvin’s theology my view of AS logically followed.

After all if the soteriology of a church is not uniform or in complete synthesis with Scripture then they cannot lay claim to infallible teachings, and thus the lynch pin for AS fails.

The RCC as an example is not uniform in its soteriology (some are Thomists while others Molinists).

The bottom line is most denominations do not take the idea of predestination to its only logical end. We are saved by grace . . . not of ourselves. We were predestined by eternal decree (before the founding of the world). These two unambiguously explained truths (reverberated throughout the New Testament with ample support in the Old Testament) are poorly understood by most.

If God chose you and I before creation; and not through any merit on our own behalf, then ultimately our free will can have nothing to do with it. God chose all sorts of men throughout history, including killers. God chose Jacob over Esau and Jacob was hardly a saint. The devil does not act unilaterally, apart from the divine will. To say such a thing imagines a dualism that is clearly rejected by Scripture. God is good yes, in Him resides no evil. However, expressions of His good will has included destruction of cities and even the entire earth.

Just think about it – if God elected us from the founding of the world, always created a world for Christ, then even the fall of man must have been by decree. God created us good. In fact badness is merely corrupted goodness (as the famous Anglican C.S. Lewis explains). However, corruption of our goodness was no cosmic accident, God is never surprised. Even the rebellion of the devil was no accident. Indeed all of this were necessary elements of the divine plan.

Calvin just makes too much sense to ignore.

We learn that those who believe will not be condemned, but those who do not are condemned “already” (a past tense act). Many think that God could not have created people just for condemnation; while at the same time agreeing that God elected people for salvation (while the rest will be condemned). This notion is just absurd? How can it be said that God chose one group of people for one thing to the exclusion of the other, without saying He decreed the other group to be excluded from that thing?

Proverbs 16:4 tells us explicitly that God created even the wicked for a purpose (the day of evil). So indeed not only does God do this, He clearly tells us He does. So much of the Christian religion I hear people telling me about is the Christian religion they wish existed – not the one that truly exists.
Personally, I am not totally sure I know where I stand in terms of predestination, but I have a major problem with the Calvinistic which comes down to this:

If, no matter what I do or believe, I am either predestined to Heaven or to Hell, then it turns life into a mere dice game from an individual’s point-of-view. After all, if I am predestined to Heaven: YIPPEE! If not, well, sucks for me. But then why does any of it matter?

As a Free Grace theologian, I believe one, at its simplest, is Saved (justified) by faith alone through Christ alone, but if we are going to take the Calvinistic approach, why worry about any of it? Theology? Beliefs? Sacraments? After all, if I’m Saved, then none of it matters and if I’m not predestined to be Saved, then none of it matter either.

Thus, I do believe in free well and in God’s omniscience, but how does it all work? Well, like the inner workings of the Trinity, perhaps it is a Mystery.
 
Personally, I am not totally sure I know where I stand in terms of predestination, but I have a major problem with the Calvinistic which comes down to this:

If, no matter what I do or believe, I am either predestined to Heaven or to Hell, then it turns life into a mere dice game from an individual’s point-of-view. After all, if I am predestined to Heaven: YIPPEE! If not, well, sucks for me. But then why does any of it matter?

As a Free Grace theologian, I believe one, at its simplest, is Saved (justified) by faith alone through Christ alone, but if we are going to take the Calvinistic approach, why worry about any of it? Theology? Beliefs? Sacraments? After all, if I’m Saved, then none of it matters and if I’m not predestined to be Saved, then none of it matter either.

Thus, I do believe in free well and in God’s omniscience, but how does it all work? Well, like the inner workings of the Trinity, perhaps it is a Mystery.
With respect I disagree with your view:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he[c] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Ephesians 1:4-5).

The above verse is one of many examples of predestination. However, with regard to the activities of the church, whether it be fellowship, participation in the Eucharist, prayer, etc. only the elect will do these things & the reprobate will not do these things.

There is no saying why bother if its one or the other anyway. If you say this then its the other.

To say anything else IMO denies that we are saved by grace. If we are saved of our own effort, or works, then grace is no longer grace. This is what the Bible states. Anything contrary is the manifestation of our own wishes. No longer do we simply accept the way God defined Himself, we define God on our terms.

We think that the idea of an eternal decree or election abrogates justice in some way. However, the human mind cannot understand divine justice. Do I pretend to know why God elects some to the exclusion of others? It does almost seem arbitrary, but God tells us it is in accordance with His good will and intention – therefore that’s where I stop.
 
I believe the reformation to have been an act of divine providence.
And, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. Where did you learn your beliefs? Were you born into the Church and taught your Churches understanding/interpretation of Scripture and disagree with Catholic teaching because of what you believe is true?

Protestant Churches aren’t really going to teach you the negative stuff, the truth about the Reformation. Besides, it has almost been 500 years for some of those Churches. Their intial changes and interpretations of Scripture have long been tradition. If you research, I mean really research every single change Luther made, read his justification/rationalization for them, research to see if there was any truth to Luther’s changes, statements, reasons, I believe that you will change your mind on the Reformation being an act of divine providence. Jesus founded One Church, wanted One Church, taught One Truth, the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church that still teaches that same Truth. Contrary teachings come from Churches that split off from Jesus’ Church by man who believed something else. The sad thing, even for Protestants Churches, the first ones from the 16th-17th centuries, don’t even resemble anything close to what they were when they were founded. Man changes things, changes interpretation. Jesus’ Deposit of Faith doesn’t change. His teachings don’t change. They were all believed/taught/understood the same way until the Reformers changed things. By the way, the Reformation wasn’t over Church teachings, doctrine, dogma, or interpretation of Scripture. It was over the sale of indulgences and other eroneous actions, which were already being addressed by the Church. There was no need for the Reformation at all. Luther got himself kicked out of the Catholic Church for his teachings. That is sad, because Jesus wanted us all to be One.

Don’t just go on what your Church or other non-Catholic Churches or people say, research it all for yourself. You will come to the Truth.
 
And, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. Where did you learn your beliefs? Were you born into the Church and taught your Churches understanding/interpretation of Scripture and disagree with Catholic teaching because of what you believe is true?

Protestant Churches aren’t really going to teach you the negative stuff, the truth about the Reformation. Besides, it has almost been 500 years for some of those Churches. Their intial changes and interpretations of Scripture have long been tradition. If you research, I mean really research every single change Luther made, read his justification/rationalization for them, research to see if there was any truth to Luther’s changes, statements, reasons, I believe that you will change your mind on the Reformation being an act of divine providence. Jesus founded One Church, wanted One Church, taught One Truth, the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church that still teaches that same Truth. Contrary teachings come from Churches that split off from Jesus’ Church by man who believed something else. The sad thing, even for Protestants Churches, the first ones from the 16th-17th centuries, don’t even resemble anything close to what they were when they were founded. Man changes things, changes interpretation. Jesus’ Deposit of Faith doesn’t change. His teachings don’t change. They were all believed/taught/understood the same way until the Reformers changed things. By the way, the Reformation wasn’t over Church teachings, doctrine, dogma, or interpretation of Scripture. It was over the sale of indulgences and other eroneous actions, which were already being addressed by the Church. There was no need for the Reformation at all. Luther got himself kicked out of the Catholic Church for his teachings. That is sad, because Jesus wanted us all to be One.

Don’t just go on what your Church or other non-Catholic Churches or people say, research it all for yourself. You will come to the Truth.
Before adopting the theological position of Calvin I was Methodist. However, easily half of my family is Catholic so I was raised around Catholicism my entire life (I even went to a Catholic undergrad & law school).

What turned me to the reformed tradition has been years of study in Scripture (broadly speaking) and soteriology more specifically.

My objections to Catholic dogma and theology are just too numerous to make Catholicism a reasonable option for me. Over time my objections to Methodist (Wesleyan / Arminian) theology grew, which drove me to the reformed church. Again the more I studied scripture the more the logic of Calvin became undeniable. No other denomination that I’ve investigated reaches Scriptural truth, at least in my opinion, as closely as the reformed denominations do.

My biggest objection is the idea that we choose God or somehow cooperate with grace in a way that makes us at least partially responsible for our own salvation. This idea permeates through modern Christianity and it just doesn’t jive with Scripture. This realization did not come easy to me. I was quite ingrained in the Wesleyan tradition, which places an enormous value on human free will.

The fact is not only do we learn that we (the “elect”) were predestined by God before the founding of the world, we also learn that we are saved by grace through faith & our own will, desires, or effort play absolutely no role.

The idea that God looked down the tunnel of time & saw who would freely choose Him and who would not & elected accordingly is IMO absurd. That idea abrogates the many passages revealing grace has nothing to do with our own efforts or character predisposition. God choices range from the most hideous sinners to the most saintly individuals. God does not provide us with His reasoning; but of course that doesn’t stop us from speculating.

If you asked me God chooses the most hideous sinners on occasion to provide witness to the world that He is here. That He can change any heart, even the most hardened.

Also, most people deny that God is also behind the bad events that occur in human history. They imagine that the devil acts unilaterally outside of the divine will. This notion posits a dualism that is simply not Christian. Nothing, good or bad, happens outside of the divine will.

God created us good, yes. It is not correct to understand our depravity as meaning badness. Rather badness is simply corrupted goodness. However, does this mean the fall of man was a cosmic accident, or even that the rebellion of the devil was any surprise to God?

Calvin simply took Augustine’s soteriology to its logical end. If we were predestined before the founding of the world (see Eph. 1:4-6) then logically even the fall of man and the rebellion of the devil was decreed by God.

Moreover, if those who believe will not be condemned and those who do not are condemned already (see John 3:18) then it is logical to say double predestination is true. What “condemnation” means is another matter entirely, however, we must at least say that the reprobate are predestined as such.

It seems absurd to say that God predestines one group (the “elect”) for salvation to the exclusion of all others, while saying that God did not predestine, even if only by omission, the reprobate to condemnation.

As I’ve said before it seems like the God of contemporary Christianity is the God we wished we had, not the one who actually exists. Of course the problem with juxtaposing our vision of what should constitute a “God” unto the real God is that our views are filtered through a depraved lens. We have no ability to understand the perfection of divine justice because we are totally depraved, which segways into another point of tension for many Christians, total depravity.

The idea that we can excel in the flesh on our own accord, which is really to allow the heresy of Pelagius to slip back into Christianity, is simply nonsense.

So I think I’ve thought this through pretty clearly and have reached what are in my mind undeniable conclusions. My search is over & I am very comfortable with my theological perspective. Imagine, God knew our name and created a place for us in His kingdom before the universe was formed out of dark space. Pretty amazing if you ask me. I understand that many think it just isn’t fair. God must give all people an equal chance at salvation or God cannot be pure goodness. However, we must know God has His reasons & they are good. Scripture testifies to this reality and so should we.
 
My biggest objection is the idea that we choose God or somehow cooperate with grace
A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. (190 AD St. Clement of Alexandria Salvation of the Rich Man chap. 21)
 
sola_scriptura;4042050:
My biggest objection is the idea that we choose God or somehow cooperate with grace
A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. (190 AD St. Clement of Alexandria Salvation of the Rich Man chap. 21)
Amen to Mickey’s comment.

I pointed this out to a Protestant person that I know by showing him Ephesians 2:8-10.
Verse 10 is paramount.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that
we should walk in them.

"sola_scriptura" we DO cooperate with God’s grace by accepting the grace that He freely gives us. God is giving grace to us all the time. But sometimes we don’t want to see it nor accept it. That little voice in your head telling you that you did something wrong is God’s grace. If you choose to ignore it and you don’t want to fix your wrong doing by apologizing to whomever you did the wrong, then that means you have not accepted God’s grace. But to be perfect (Jesus told us to be perfect) we go one step further than just the apology, we actually “make it up” to that person by doing something charitable for them. That is the perfect work God created for us. We have to “work” at accepting God’s grace. We can either take it (heaven) or leave it (hell).
 
Hi sola scriptura,
Thank you for such a completely thorough and wonderful response.

I am not as researched as you in the different ways/beliefs. I did have a period in my life where I was away from the Catholic Church due to family issues. I attended the Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Assembly of God Churches with extended family and friends. Even as a late teen, I could tell something was off. Every Church had different teachings, different opinions, spoke of what they believed Sacred Scripture to mean, denegrated other Churches - especially the Catholic Church. They were great for worship, feeling good, but there was no real substance. Even young, I realized that Jesus only taught One Truth. I was hearning many different interpretations of that Truth.

You have your reasons for rejecting Catholic teachings, There are some really knowledgable people on these threads that can give you much scholarship. I do believe that you HAVE to set your pre-concieved notions aside to realize that you have learned in error. If you self study, you will wind up with different beliefs every time. Jesus taught One Truth, that doesn’t change. We are not supposed to self-interpret. Jesus knew our nature and put in place a system to keep His teachings protected from error. He gave His Authority to the Apostles, breathed on them and told them to go forth and teach. He said the gates of hell would never prevail and that He would guide and protect His Church until the end of the ages. We believe Him! He said those words. Every Church that splintered off of His Church is an apostate Church founded by man. You can name who started the Church and what year it started. Jesus didn’t say he would start new Churches if His teachings changed. He said, this is My Church and I will guide and protect it until the end of the ages. You either believe Him or you don’t. You either believe that He is capable of doing what He said, or you believe He is lying. He didn’t teach the thousands and thousands of different interpretations that are out there. He taught ONE Truth. It is in His Church - the Catholic Church. You can believe anything anyone tells you if you want to. But, what you have to do if you want to know the actual Truth is research Early Church History and all of the Early Church Fathers. Too many people have done that to try to disprove Catholic teachings and they couldn’t. They proved their own Church/beliefs to be in error and came home to Christ’s Church.

If you have so many objections to Catholic dogma, I think that you are misunderstanding the teaching.

It is all over the Bible that we have to participate in our salvation. Jesus Work is done, but ours isn’t. We can fall from grace and certain things need to be achieved/done to get back to full grace. Heaven isn’t just given to us because Jesus died for our sins. He didn’t die for our future sins. We have free will and we are responsible for our actions. The Catholics DON’T believe that works is the way to get us to heaven. That is a false/wrong teaching. Faith and works go hand in hand. Grace comes through faith, but not faith with out works. There is much in Scripture that teaches that as well. You have to be careful to read all the verses that support eachother and explain eachother, not just pick a verse that supports your belief and ignore the rest. If we did that, we would be called on the carpet for that. It is obviously wrong and teaches the wrong interpretation. It was understood and believed that we have to participate in our salvation for over 1500 years before some man started teaching that he thought the truth to be something else. We are saved through grace because of our complete faith (which includes following Jesus’ Law of Love) not just by faith alone. Our will, desires and actions play every role. This is specifically spelled out quite often in the Bible. Remember, not every man that believes in Jesus will go to heaven. There are reasons, do you know what they are? I don’t know of one passage that teaches that the grace that we are given has nothing to do with our efforts. They actually teach the opposite. How could you see that, when it just simply isn’t there?

There are many, many threads which have spelled out this over and over again much better than I could ever explain it. These are just a few threads that I think you would enjoy and learn from some really fantastic, informative posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233879
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239353
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=247998
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=248507
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=252961

I pray that you can open your heart and mind to the Truth that has been taught for 2,000 years now. I also pray that you somehow see that you are believing in teachings and traditions of men. The things that you have written were never true or believed to be true by Christians until man changed things. The writings are there for you to study. You will see that these teachings are in error. You either believe in the teachings of Christ, the way he gave them to the apostles, or you believe in the teachings of men. Your search shouldn’t be over. I honestly don’t believe you have studied the writings and teachings of the very Early Church Fathers. If you studied them, I truly believe you would be saying something entirely different.
 
40.png
Mickey:
A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. (190 AD St. Clement of Alexandria Salvation of the Rich Man chap. 21)
This statement is nonsensical. How is “working and toiling” any different than “eagerly and honestly” seeking to overcome sin? This is just semantics.

What St. Clement should have said (in order to properly understand the distinction between works that flow from faith and works that do not) is to look for the motive behind the works. If the motive is to please God then it is faith, since one will not seek to please a God they do not believe in. If the motive is to gain or bolster their own status within their community (or some other self serving purpose) then it is not faith. We see this revealed in the discourse between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (Ephesians 1:4-5).


This passage merely shows predestination is true, nothing more or less. So it may be used to support either yours or my own perspective. However, we may at least start by knowing those who will respond to and cooperate with grace and endure to the end were predestined for salvation before the founding of the world.

Now the question turns to the mechanics of election. Either God looked down the tunnel of time and saw our future choices, electing accordingly, or we were elected by eternal decree.
If we say God looked down the tunnel of time to see what our choice would be before formulating His elective decree, it then is really our choice not God’s. Even if there is such a thing as the universal enablement you posit it is still ultimately our choice. We decide not God, and grace is no longer grace but something less.

*For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10).*

The grace that saves is not of ourselves, not a result of works.

*Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began (2 Timothy 1:9).

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out (John 6:37).*

The following is a excerpt from John Calvin, the Institutes on the Christian Religion:

*THE covenant of life not being equally preached to all, and among those to whom it is preached not always finding the same reception, this diversity discovers the wonderful depth of the Divine judgment. Nor is it to be doubted that this variety also follows, subject to the decision of God’s eternal election. If it be evidently the result of the Divine will, that salvation is freely offered to some, and others are prevented from attaining it—this immediately gives rise to important and difficult questions, which are incapable of any other explication, than by the establishment of pious minds in what ought to be received concerning election and predestination—a question, in the opinion of many, full of perplexity; for they consider nothing more unreasonable, than that, of the common mass of mankind, some should be predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction. But how unreasonably they perplex themselves will afterwards appear from the sequel of our discourse. Besides, the very obscurity which excites such dread, not only displays the utility of this doctrine, but shows it to be productive of the most delightful benefit. We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with His eternal election, which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that He adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what He refuses to others.

Ignorance of this principle evidently detracts from the Divine glory, and diminishes real humility. But according to Paul, what is so necessary to be known, never can be known, unless God, without any regard to works, chooses those whom He has decreed. “At this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise, grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise, work is no more work.” If we need to be recalled to the origin of election, to prove that we obtain salvation from no other source than the mere goodness of God, they who desire to extinguish this principle, do all they can to obscure what ought to be magnificently and loudly celebrated, and to pluck up humility by the roots. In ascribing the salvation of the remnant of the people to the election of grace, Paul clearly testifies, that it is then only known that God saves whom upon which there can be no claim. They who shut the gates to prevent anyone from presuming to approach and taste this doctrine, do no less injury to man than to God; for nothing else will be sufficient to produce in us suitable humility, or to impress us with a due sense of our great obligations to God. Nor is there any other basis for solid confidence, even according to the authority of Christ, who, to deliver us from all fear, and render us invincible amidst so many dangers, snares, and deadly conflicts, promises to preserve in safety all whom the Father has committed to His care. *

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predest.html
 
Hi sola scriptura,
Thank you for such a completely thorough and wonderful response.

I am not as researched as you in the different ways/beliefs. I did have a period in my life where I was away from the Catholic Church due to family issues. I attended the Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Assembly of God Churches with extended family and friends. Even as a late teen, I could tell something was off. Every Church had different teachings, different opinions, spoke of what they believed Sacred Scripture to mean, denegrated other Churches - especially the Catholic Church. They were great for worship, feeling good, but there was no real substance. Even young, I realized that Jesus only taught One Truth. I was hearning many different interpretations of that Truth.

You have your reasons for rejecting Catholic teachings, There are some really knowledgable people on these threads that can give you much scholarship. I do believe that you HAVE to set your pre-concieved notions aside to realize that you have learned in error. If you self study, you will wind up with different beliefs every time. Jesus taught One Truth, that doesn’t change. We are not supposed to self-interpret. Jesus knew our nature and put in place a system to keep His teachings protected from error. He gave His Authority to the Apostles, breathed on them and told them to go forth and teach. He said the gates of hell would never prevail and that He would guide and protect His Church until the end of the ages. We believe Him! He said those words. Every Church that splintered off of His Church is an apostate Church founded by man. You can name who started the Church and what year it started. Jesus didn’t say he would start new Churches if His teachings changed. He said, this is My Church and I will guide and protect it until the end of the ages. You either believe Him or you don’t. You either believe that He is capable of doing what He said, or you believe He is lying. He didn’t teach the thousands and thousands of different interpretations that are out there. He taught ONE Truth. It is in His Church - the Catholic Church. You can believe anything anyone tells you if you want to. But, what you have to do if you want to know the actual Truth is research Early Church History and all of the Early Church Fathers. Too many people have done that to try to disprove Catholic teachings and they couldn’t. They proved their own Church/beliefs to be in error and came home to Christ’s Church.

If you have so many objections to Catholic dogma, I think that you are misunderstanding the teaching.

It is all over the Bible that we have to participate in our salvation. Jesus Work is done, but ours isn’t. We can fall from grace and certain things need to be achieved/done to get back to full grace. Heaven isn’t just given to us because Jesus died for our sins. He didn’t die for our future sins. We have free will and we are responsible for our actions. The Catholics DON’T believe that works is the way to get us to heaven. That is a false/wrong teaching. Faith and works go hand in hand. Grace comes through faith, but not faith with out works. There is much in Scripture that teaches that as well. You have to be careful to read all the verses that support eachother and explain eachother, not just pick a verse that supports your belief and ignore the rest. If we did that, we would be called on the carpet for that. It is obviously wrong and teaches the wrong interpretation. It was understood and believed that we have to participate in our salvation for over 1500 years before some man started teaching that he thought the truth to be something else. We are saved through grace because of our complete faith (which includes following Jesus’ Law of Love) not just by faith alone. Our will, desires and actions play every role. This is specifically spelled out quite often in the Bible. Remember, not every man that believes in Jesus will go to heaven. There are reasons, do you know what they are? I don’t know of one passage that teaches that the grace that we are given has nothing to do with our efforts. They actually teach the opposite. How could you see that, when it just simply isn’t there?

There are many, many threads which have spelled out this over and over again much better than I could ever explain it. These are just a few threads that I think you would enjoy and learn from some really fantastic, informative posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233879
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239353
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=247998
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=248507
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=252961

I pray that you can open your heart and mind to the Truth that has been taught for 2,000 years now. I also pray that you somehow see that you are believing in teachings and traditions of men. The things that you have written were never true or believed to be true by Christians until man changed things. The writings are there for you to study. You will see that these teachings are in error. You either believe in the teachings of Christ, the way he gave them to the apostles, or you believe in the teachings of men. Your search shouldn’t be over. I honestly don’t believe you have studied the writings and teachings of the very Early Church Fathers. If you studied them, I truly believe you would be saying something entirely different.
With respect, it pays me no heedance to begin with puffery, purporting to feel my pain and empathize with my alleged theological confusion, and then attack through the back door.

So then you say I have to set my preconceived notions aside, while you offer nothing in terms of Scriptural fortitude. You bemoan and whale my ignorance with false kind speak. If you are to insult my doctrines and beliefs then girdle up your loins and do so with forthrightness or don’t do it at all.

There is nothing worse than those who seek to set aside sound and sober doctrine with false puffery, who dress in the garment of love and humility while preaching a doctrine of pride.

So if you would like to attack reformed doctrine then do so, I eagerly invite you to take me to account. I’m a happy servant of God fully prepared to defend the truth in any forum.

Attack my interpretation of Scripture with your or your churches interpretation, attack the doctrines of the Magisterial Reformers with whom I identify, but don’t blow hot air my way and expect me not to see through the smoke.
 
With respect, it pays me no heedance to begin with puffery, purporting to feel my pain and empathize with my alleged theological confusion, and then attack through the back door.

So then you say I have to set my preconceived notions aside, while you offer nothing in terms of Scriptural fortitude. You bemoan and whale my ignorance with false kind speak. If you are to insult my doctrines and beliefs then girdle up your loins and do so with forthrightness or don’t do it at all.

There is nothing worse than those who seek to set aside sound and sober doctrine with false puffery, who dress in the garment of love and humility while preaching a doctrine of pride.

So if you would like to attack reformed doctrine then do so, I eagerly invite you to take me to account. I’m a happy servant of God fully prepared to defend the truth in any forum.

Attack my interpretation of Scripture with your or your churches interpretation, attack the doctrines of the Magisterial Reformers with whom I identify, but don’t blow hot air my way and expect me not to see through the smoke.
Hello sola_scriptura,

I wouldn’t mind if you gave me, or anyone else here the opportunity to address some of your questions or concerns regarding Catholic Doctrine but from reading many of your posts here, it appears to me that we have much more in common and that we agree on more than we disagree.

No one here can respond to you theologically, if you don’t post your differences. If you would be kind enough to provide a “Top-Ten” list of Catholic “disagreements”, then I am sure you will receive the "Catholic” response.

You may not realize it now but there does exist a Catholic response to every Protestant error and I believe that was the point that the OP was trying to make…it didn’t read as if he was “attacking” your religion.

Can we agree that simply disagreeing, does not amount to “insulting”?

So, how about it? What are our differences?

1…
2…
3…
4…
5…
6…
7…
8…
9…
10…

Peace
 
Thanks Jimmy B for the support. WOW, I have to say to you sola scriptura, you are entirely off base. I was in NO way “purporting to feel my pain and empathize with my alleged theological confusion, and then attack through the back door.” You are gravely mistaken. I wasn’t given much by you to go on other than you disagree with Catholic dogma, a lot that the Catholic Church teaches, and the impression that the Catholic Church is less that adequate.

Whatever beliefs you hold, if they are different from what the Catholic Church teaches, are less than 500 years old, invented by man, taught by man’s own interpretation and NOT Jesus’ teachings. So, whatever puffery you think I was attempting, is just you having to deny the Catholic Church’s teachings to justify teachings outside of her.

I don’t have the time to recreate the wheel. There have been many conversations in regards to faith alone/grace through works, because of faith. So, instead of spending time that I didn’t have trying to re-write it, I gave you some threads which have this very discussion and much more in it for your information. There is more on those threads, and written much better than I could attempt for you.

Your response was disrespectful to me and to anyone else who is trying to show you/teach you Jesus’ Deposit of Faith, as He ONLY gave it to apostles who taught it the way He commanded them to through His Divine Protection to found HIS Church, which is the Catholic Church. There is NO OTHER CHURCH that can teach you Scripture interpretation and Jesus’ teachings, because they were given to the Catholic Church and they remain with us and not with the Churches founded from the split from Christ’s Church by man.

So, to clarify, I was not attacking you or blowing smoke. I was actually serious. So, you are the one that needs to re-evaluate where you are. It seems to me that you are the one who is prideful. Why are you here? You aren’t going to teach us anything. The Catholic Church wase around teaching Jesus’ Truth long before your Church was ever created by man, penned the Bible, and continued to spread Jesus’ Truth for all generations. You are following teachings and traditions of men, because you aren’t following the original teachings of Christ. You can say whatever you want, believe whatever you want to believe. That will NEVER make it true. Maybe one day you will be able to see the error of believing modern man and churches.
 
Hello sola_scriptura,

I wouldn’t mind if you gave me, or anyone else here the opportunity to address some of your questions or concerns regarding Catholic Doctrine but from reading many of your posts here, it appears to me that we have much more in common and that we agree on more than we disagree.

No one here can respond to you theologically, if you don’t post your differences. If you would be kind enough to provide a “Top-Ten” list of Catholic “disagreements”, then I am sure you will receive the "Catholic” response.

You may not realize it now but there does exist a Catholic response to every Protestant error and I believe that was the point that the OP was trying to make…it didn’t read as if he was “attacking” your religion.

Can we agree that simply disagreeing, does not amount to “insulting”?

So, how about it? What are our differences?

1…
2…
3…
4…
5…
6…
7…
8…
9…
10…

Peace
Jimmy B,

I have found trying to engage Calvinists in theological debate to be quite pointless. In fact, I can remember one guy who attends the same University I do and we have had several theological discussions and they always end with me wanting to pop him one in the face (I do not of course).

What really irked me about the one I had to deal with was that he viewed Calvin’s commentary/interpretation as the only interpretation that really makes sense and on par with Scripture itself. There was just something in the guy’s demeanor, this aura of theological pride, almost self-righteousness and obnoxiousness that drove me up the wall.

The problem with Calvinists is the elevate Calvin and his ideas into a position of near infallibility and they have their own rationale. As I mentioned earlier, I find Calvinism to be a, quite frankly, worthless doctrine.

Sorry if I sound mean, but that Calvinist I dealt with left a very bad taste in my mouth towards the Calvinism. It should be noted that, although Presbyterianism claims Calvin as its founder, most Presbyterians are not hardcore Calvinists.

Perhaps it is the arbitrariness and elitism of hardcore Calvinism that bugs me. And, sola_scriptura, I hope you do not take my comments personally, but I see problems and contradictions within the very underpinnings of Calvinism and the representative I had to deal with did not leave one with a good personal view of Calvinistic beliefs.
 
Thanks Jimmy B for the support. WOW, I have to say to you sola scriptura, you are entirely off base. I was in NO way “purporting to feel my pain and empathize with my alleged theological confusion, and then attack through the back door.” You are gravely mistaken. I wasn’t given much by you to go on other than you disagree with Catholic dogma, a lot that the Catholic Church teaches, and the impression that the Catholic Church is less that adequate.

Whatever beliefs you hold, if they are different from what the Catholic Church teaches, are less than 500 years old, invented by man, taught by man’s own interpretation and NOT Jesus’ teachings. So, whatever puffery you think I was attempting, is just you having to deny the Catholic Church’s teachings to justify teachings outside of her.

I don’t have the time to recreate the wheel. There have been many conversations in regards to faith alone/grace through works, because of faith. So, instead of spending time that I didn’t have trying to re-write it, I gave you some threads which have this very discussion and much more in it for your information. There is more on those threads, and written much better than I could attempt for you.

Your response was disrespectful to me and to anyone else who is trying to show you/teach you Jesus’ Deposit of Faith, as He ONLY gave it to apostles who taught it the way He commanded them to through His Divine Protection to found HIS Church, which is the Catholic Church. There is NO OTHER CHURCH that can teach you Scripture interpretation and Jesus’ teachings, because they were given to the Catholic Church and they remain with us and not with the Churches founded from the split from Christ’s Church by man.

So, to clarify, I was not attacking you or blowing smoke. I was actually serious. So, you are the one that needs to re-evaluate where you are. It seems to me that you are the one who is prideful. Why are you here? You aren’t going to teach us anything. The Catholic Church wase around teaching Jesus’ Truth long before your Church was ever created by man, penned the Bible, and continued to spread Jesus’ Truth for all generations. You are following teachings and traditions of men, because you aren’t following the original teachings of Christ. You can say whatever you want, believe whatever you want to believe. That will NEVER make it true. Maybe one day you will be able to see the error of believing modern man and churches.
👍
 
This statement is nonsensical.
You and Jean Cauvin (Calvin) are nonsensical.
What St. Clement should have said…
I think St Clement said it much better than you or Jean Cauvin.
*Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love *
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (Ephesians 1:4-5).
Matt 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
However, we may at least start by knowing those who will respond to and cooperate with grace and endure to the end
Ah, now you are saying that we respond and cooperate with grace. Now you are coming around.🙂
*For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; *

*not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. *

*For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10). *
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
The grace that saves is not of ourselves, not a result of works.
Correct. We are saved by grace. We must freely accept this grace. Our good works are the result of our faith. Faith and works cannot be separated.
The following is a excerpt from John Calvin, the Institutes on the Christian Religion:
Again, I’ll take the Church Fathers over Jean Cauvin–any day! 😉

**As then it is His[God’s] part to plant and to water, so it is yours to bear fruit: it is God’s to grant grace, but yours to receive and guard it. Despise not the grace because it is freely given, but receive and treasure it devoutly. **
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 1)

However, there are things that Cauvin said that I agree with. Here are two:

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.”

“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top