Why is it better to be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nogames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Why not begin this inquiry with a question: are there certain truths that we MUST accept in order to be saved? If so, what things must be accepted, and how will we know them? I believe that God has given us a huge degree of freedom on most things. I also believe that differences on things like infant baptism are inevitable. The bible never claims to be an exhaustive reference for all of our beliefs and practices. So IMO, on matters such as infant baptism, the sequence of events leading to the second coming, the exact degree to which fallen humans have free will, and hundreds of other topics that are not fully addressed in the bible, we should be free to use our own imperfect reason, as long as we don’t look down on those who disagree with ourselves on the non-essentials. Keep in mind that Jesus didn’t accept everything that was being preached and practiced in the temple. He had issues with the “church” of His time.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like Christianity is quite a bit more subjective than objective. You’re saying it’s your own private opinion, which probably differs from other people’s, that decides matters. So ultimately you can’t know.
 
There’s a lot of things the church (at least once) accepted as subjective. They left open things like the afterlife, the nature of heaven and hell, etc… Church fathers often differed or debated about them. None of the Councils charted down exacting detail and I think it only creates problems if you try to do it. It’s healthy to appreciate mystery and simply converse about possibility with your Christian brothers… rather than being dogmatic and specific about every thing.
 
Last edited:
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?
Let’s examine that verse:

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

If water baptism saves people from hell, then why did he say, “It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”? ISTM that he’s saying that the water symbolizes the baptism that actually does save. What sort of baptism is it that saves us? To answer this, let’s look at John 3:1-15

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

Jesus seems to be suggesting that the first birth (after being immersed in water) isn’t enough. He then goes on to explain the second birth which involves being immersed in the Spirit. It isn’t clear from this passage whether or not Nicodemus understood the teaching of Jesus here.
 
Last edited:
The very meaning of “sacrament” (or Mystery in Greek) is that it’s a sign or symbol pointing to something else. So it is with Baptism.

But one shouldn’t negate baptism either. Even our Lord himself thought it appropriate to undergo John’s baptism. How much more so should we, for Christ’s baptism?
 
Last edited:
But, Nogames, that’s your interpretation, isn’t it? Someone who believes differently could provide their own interpretation, at which point what do you do? How do you know baptism is something we are allowed to hold varying opinions on? And how do those differences jive with the admonition for unity we see throughout the New Testament. If God cannot contradict Himself and is, by definition, free from all error, how can the Scripture he gives us have so much room for differing opinion?
 
Last edited:
If Sola Scriptura truly was all we needed, it’s amazing how fast the Reformers split amongst themselves, preaching the same Sola Scriptura. They even had to contend with “Radical Reformers” (Anabaptists) who basically split off from them to boot! Even went to war with them.
 
It sounds like Christianity is quite a bit more subjective than objective. You’re saying it’s your own private opinion, which probably differs from other people’s, that decides matters. So ultimately you can’t know.
I’m saying that we can’t (in this life) have absolute certainty of knowledge on anything. But God holds us totally responsible for knowing His word. That doesn’t mean that we have to memorize the whole bible, but He will hold us accountable for what we know, what we believe, and how we live.

To put it another way, I’m saying that according to Romans chapter one, (for example) no one can use the excuse, “but you never gave me sufficient proof that you exist!” God will send all atheists to hell because what CAN be known (even without absolute certainty) is the standard. He doesn’t hold us to a standard that no one could possibly meet. There is reason and there is faith. We need God’s help with both, and the two (faith and reason) are very compatible.
 
Last edited:
Really? So God discriminates…and there are those He loves and there are those He does not love! 🤨

That would be the Calvinist position. In all seriousness. “For Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated” is the usual proof-text that gets tossed around.
 
So basically we have God’s inerrant word, but we can’t know for sure what it says. And there are some essential teachings and some non-essential teachings, but we can’t know what those are. You’re interpretation of a verse is different than someone else’s, but there’s no hard rule to discern who’s right and who isn’t.
 
Really? So God discriminates…and there are those He loves and there are those He does not love! 🤨

That would be the Calvinist position. In all seriousness. “For Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated” is the usual proof-text that gets tossed around.
I don’t want to get side-tracked by going into the topic of predestination. For now, I’ll just point out that God could, if it pleased Him, save every single person that ever exists. Since He doesn’t do that, we naturally would want to know WHY God will not save everyone. There are millions of people that will “answer” this question by shouting, “free will” as though that explains it. But notice that this “answer” fails as an answer because it assumes what needs to be proven: in what sense is the fallen man free? If we are equally free to accept or reject Christ, then what is it specifically that makes some people use their “free” will to choose wisely, while so many others don’t? Are some people just more righteous compared to others? Or are some people just more “free” than others? What is the reason for the disparity?
 
Last edited:
Predestination seems logically true for an eternal being. What’s silly is trying to figure it out. Or writing a 1000 page Systematic Theology on it. 😛 Just like the Trinity. Man needs to know his limits. Especially theologians and philosophers.
 
Last edited:
So basically we have God’s inerrant word, but we can’t know for sure what it says. And there are some essential teachings and some non-essential teachings, but we can’t know what those are. You’re interpretation of a verse is different than someone else’s, but there’s no hard rule to discern who’s right and who isn’t.
By God’s grace we can know what we need to know to be saved, but we can’t “know” (in this life) with the same certainty that God has. What this means in practice, is that it always comes down to faith. I know that this (God’s way of salvation) is not going to be accepted here, where infallible knowledge and complete certitude are the key selling points of the Catholic system, but I believe that God provides His people with ALL that they need to be saved, and it will always come down to a matter of faith, and not provable factual reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Predestination seems logically true for an eternal being. What’s silly is trying to figure it out. Or writing a 1000 page Systematic Theology on it. 😛 Just like the Trinity. Man needs to know his limits. Especially theologians and philosophers.
Well said, straykat!
 
I think we’ve both established we can’t know a whole lot with great certainty. The issue that you ask why Cathllolicms is “better” and most of us have examined the evidence available to us and determined that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. We don’t have certainty and we aren’t asking for it. I have plenty of reasons why I think Catholicism is true and I can give you the historical documents and teachings to make that case. However, I haven’t seen you provide much evidence for me to believe you. It seems your beliefs hinge on a lot of personal opinion and subjective evidence. For instance, I don’t find it reasonable to claim some things within Scripture are non-essential without providing a set of teachings Scripture says are essential. If that’s the kind of “reason” we have to be Christians than I’d have no part of it. Catholicism can provide reasonable evidence to substantiate itself, not certainty. A lot of us have determined that evidence superior to anything any other denomination provides.

I’ll bow out of the conversation now, but it’s been nice conversing with you Nogames, and I appreciate your civility and devotion to Christ. While we may disagree I hope I was as charitable as yourself, and please forgive me if I wasn’t!
 
I think we’ve both established we can’t know a whole lot with great certainty. The issue that you ask why Cathllolicms is “better” and most of us have examined the evidence available to us and determined that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. We don’t have certainty and we aren’t asking for it. I have plenty of reasons why I think Catholicism is true and I can give you the historical documents and teachings to make that case. However, I haven’t seen you provide much evidence for me to believe you. It seems your beliefs hinge on a lot of personal opinion and subjective evidence. For instance, I don’t find it reasonable to claim some things within Scripture are non-essential without providing a set of teachings Scripture says are essential. If that’s the kind of “reason” we have to be Christians than I’d have no part of it. Catholicism can provide reasonable evidence to substantiate itself, not certainty. A lot of us have determined that evidence superior to anything any other denomination provides.

I’ll bow out of the conversation now, but it’s been nice conversing with you Nogames, and I appreciate your civility and devotion to Christ. While we may disagree I hope I was as charitable as yourself, and please forgive me if I wasn’t!
You’ve been a class act in every post. It has been a pleasure discussing these things with you!
 
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!
Luck…no it is not luck, it is with an open heart.

And this atheist provides an example…

It is not by luck…he was the only one, among a busload…who converted. I hope you do spend the time to watch it.
 
I wonder, why do all these scientifically validated miracles in this Church only happen in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches? Why do all these Eucharistic miracles always have the same blood type (AB)? Is someone simply trying to tell me something?
 
The Methodists have been ordaining women since the time of Wesley. It’s not forbidden by their church.

So I guess the Methodists are suspect?

What denomination are you, exactly?
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top