Why is it better to be Catholic?

[nogames]

nogames:

This is exactly the same attitude that often made Jesus feel sickened by the Pharisees. They lorded their religious traditions and their law over the commoners. They looked down on those who didn’t treat them (the Pharisees) with the high honor they felt they deserved. But the Jesus that I’ve come to know and love treats the lowest of criminals with compassion and respect! So I will humbly serve Him, and leave the infallible tradition stuff to better men (and women) than myself.

Jesus was sickened by hypocrisy and arrogance, not tradition. He even said they hold the seat of Moses. He did not abolish tradition, just the attitude that tradition supersedes mercy, charity, and humility.

I must respectfully disagree. You are forgetting what the Pharisees were so proud of. They were proud of their religious traditions, their authority, and their knowledge of history. Why do you think that Jesus was sickened by these “authorities”? I’ll give you a little hint: they were not living by faith.

 

[Arbovirus]

I must respectfully disagree. You are forgetting what the Pharisees were so proud of. They were proud of their religious traditions, their authority, and their knowledge of history. Why do you think that Jesus was sickened by these “authorities”? I’ll give you a little hint: they were not living by faith.

Pride is the problem, not tradition. You literally said that. “They were proud.”

The father of John the Baptist practiced tradition (as a priest). Jesus said to respect the seat of Moses - imagine that, God Incarnate telling people to respect the seat of a mere mortal, a tradition passed down from parting of the Red Sea to the Roman occupation. Jesus celebrated the Passover feast at the age of 12. Jesus celebrated the Passover feast 21 years later at the Last Supper. Imagine that. Tradition of His ancestors.

How terrible. They should’ve lived the “faith” but instead they practiced “tradition”.

 

[Darryl_B]

You might think that being baptized is necessary for your salvation but the bible states in various places that we are saved by grace, through faith, and “not by our works.”

So when St Peter says “Baptism now saves you”, and you say “Baptism does not save you”, which one am I going to believe through faith?

 

[nogames]

Jesus was sickened by hypocrisy and arrogance, not tradition. He even said they hold the seat of Moses. He did not abolish tradition, just the attitude that tradition supersedes mercy, charity, and humility.

What specifically, in your opinion, caused the Pharisees to become so arrogant and hypocritical?

 

[Arbovirus]

What specifically, in your opinion, caused the Pharisees to become so arrogant and hypocritical?

If I am guilty of gluttony or drunkenness, I cannot blame food or alcohol. The cause for all sins is selfish will.

 

[nogames]

nogames:

You might think that being baptized is necessary for your salvation but the bible states in various places that we are saved by grace, through faith, and “not by our works.”

So when St Peter says “Baptism now saves you”, and you say “Baptism does not save you”, which one am I going to believe through faith?

What do you need faith in Jesus for, if you can be saved by being baptized in water? If I were you, I would let Scripture interpret Scripture.

 

[Arbovirus]

What do you need faith in Jesus for, if you can be saved by being baptized in water? If I were you, I would let Scripture interpret Scripture.

The same Scripture that said faith without works is dead?

 

[Darryl_B]

What do you need faith in Jesus for, if you can be saved by being baptized in water?

Believe AND be baptized. Salvation cannot be boiled down to a simplistic singularity. Your question should be “How do I understand without a preacher”.

 

[Darryl_B]

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

There is the problem. But notice Jesus Christ says “DO”.

 

[pablope]

so you are saying here…there has to be some guidance provided. So the question then is…who shall provide that guidance?

So…why has this resulted in each Protestant congregation having their own interpretation? How can you tell which is valid and which is the truth?
By what standard will you use?

And second question…does the Holy Spirit guide the Church or the individual?

Yes, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is only available to those people who God chooses, and only at His timing.

REally? So God discriminates…and there are those He loves and there are those He does not love!

The protestants churches disagree mostly over minor details, such as infant baptism, the degree of freedom of the will (in fallen sinners), predestination, the sequence of events leading to the return of Christ, etc.

What is minor to you may not be minor to another…so how do you determine what is minor and not?

This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit leads people into error.

Then…can you explain the different interpretations on the Eucharist, the papacy, the need for baptism, the sacraments, confession…just to name a few…among different protestants?

The Holy Spirit guides both the individual and the church. By guiding many (but not all) of the individuals within the church, he guides the whole church.

Does the HS guide them the same way? Can you back this up with Scripture?
Or is it…the HS guides the teachings of the Church…and guides the individual to follow those teachings of the Church?

 

[pablope]

By “minor” I was referring to doctrines that have no bearing on one’s salvation. You might think that being baptized is necessary for your salvation but the bible states in various places that we are saved by grace, through faith, and “not by our works.” The reason why boasting is “excluded” in our salvation is because no one has done, or could do, anything to save himself/herself from hell. If we are not saved by our own works, then it would be odd to think that we could be saved by our parents (or any other person’s) works in causing us to be baptized.

But it is grace received through baptism…

 

[RKS89]

Scripture interpret Scripture.

How do know that’s the correct way to interpret Scripture? Also, where is the list of teaching and practices that have no bearing on our salvation, and how can you be absolutely sure?

 

[Darryl_B]

And why is Scripture so big when we just need 2 verses?

 

[nogames]

How do know that’s the correct way to interpret Scripture?

Because God doesn’t contradict Himself. And because there can be no higher authority than God.

 

[nogames]

Also, where is the list of teaching and practices that have no bearing on our salvation, and how can you be absolutely sure?

You are still hoping to obtain absolute certainty regarding your salvation. God has chosen not to arrange it that way. Salvation will always be a matter of faith; not certain and provable knowledge.

I’ve noticed that Catholics here have been referring to what I call a “chain of infallibility.” Here is how it is alleged to operate:

1. We need an infallible church to lead us to infallible truth because we can’t trust in our own ability to correctly interpret God’s word.
2. God provides an infallible church to lead His people to salvation.
3. This infallible church has four “marks” by which we must identify His church.

Notice that fallible people will never find the infallible church without getting LUCKY. Does God operate on the basis of luck? How can fallible people correctly identify the four “marks” infallibly? You have an infallible chain until you get to number 3 above. At number 3, you are right back to relying on your own fallible reason. So much for your infallible certainty!

 

[nogames]

But it is grace received through baptism…

We don’t obtain the grace required for salvation by our works, the works of our parents, or the works of anyone other than Jesus. By saying that we receive the grace we need for salvation via baptism, you are still making salvation a human work. Grace, by definition, can’t be earned by things that we humans do. In Romans 11:6 we read: “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.”

 

[RKS89]

I agree with both statements. My question is with so many contradictions within denominations, how can you discern who has correct doctrine and who does not? Those 2 statements do not answer the question of knowing who’s interpretation is correct and who’s contradicts God.

 

[RKS89]

If you say some things are essential for salvation and some things are minor details left to the discretion of the individual Christian, I fully expect you to provide a concrete list of them. Show me where the Scriptures differentiate between essential and non-essential doctrines or practices. I’m not looking for aobslute certainty for my salvation, only asking for you to provide reasonable evidence for the claim you made.

 

[nogames]

I agree with both statements. My question is with so many contradictions within denominations, how can you discern who has correct doctrine and who does not?

There will usually be a few clues. For example, there are (these days) lots of protestant churches that have women doing the preaching on Sunday mornings. But since that is forbidden in the churches, you can be reasonably sure that churches with female preachers are not making a priority out of following the bible. Same thing on gay marriage, the acceptance of transgender identification, or an attitude of tolerance for abortion. But your question is a fair one. And it isn’t just a question that protestants have to deal with. Catholics are also under pressure from the social justice warriors, postmodernists, etc., to become “more tolerant”.

 

[RKS89]

It seems like the point is that the Bible instructs the Church. So if you see a church teaching something contradictory to Scripture, you’d take that as evidence they aren’t teaching from the Bible.

Does the Bible contain explicit teaching about abortion? If a church were to teach that baptism saves based on 1 Peter 3:21, would that be a true doctrine? Or when Paul tells us that the Church is the pillar of truth?