You can't have it both ways.

[joe370]

Hey Shaick…

I didn’t say the father and the son. Will you please answer the preceding question. Thanks…gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html, which is my old stomping grounds as a former protestant, was not helpful.
John 15:26 (New International Version)
26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

John 15:26 (King James Version)
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 15:26 (Young’s Literal Translation)
26`And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father – the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me

Am I seeing in three’s LOL…A great passage showing that Jesus sent the spirit of truth to His one church to testify about Jesus, but it does not say that the father and the HS or Jesus and the HS are one. This merely says that the comforter comes from the father, with no suggestion that they are one. I am trying hard to see things from your perspective by the way.

OK, then prove it? Show me in the bible alone where the bible says: All the traditions important to our salvation have been recorded in the New Testament, otherwise it’s not to be believed, according to your premise that it must be in the bible to be believed?
I have for some time and on many different threads been asking what traditions the Catholics hold that I do not have that are required for my salvation. It is amazing all are always found in the Holy Bible.

This is a red herring and does not address my question. I would really appreciate it if you would address my question - thanks.

Can you show me some Sacred Tradition that is not mentioned in the Holy Bible that I need for my salvation?

That all Priests and Bishops must remain unmarried?

This is a discipline; not required for salvation.

Do I need to believe in purgatory?

Purgatory is not a means to salvation. You make it there, you have made it to heaven.

Mary’s perpetual virginity? Her assumption?

The mother of God is not our savior.

Paying money and Indulgences?

Absolutely necessary for salvation. Just kidding…To silly to be serious.

That a Pope is infallible when seated in Peter’s chair?

Believing that the pope is infallible when seated in Peter’s chair will not lead you to salvation; you and I have but one savior, JC.

See, I was very direct in answering your questions; perhaps you could do the same.

Catholics too believe that all of the books of the bible were recorded by the close of the 1st century. Did the CC determine the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of the books from the bible? This will help understand your unique perspective, or is it your contention that none of the 27 books of the NT were ever questioned as canon from the 1st century to the 4th century?

The universal Church did not become the Catholic Church until sometime later?

Prove it? Jesus church is called the CC as early as the latter part of the 1st century; I can provide citations if necessary? No other church existed until the 11th century, at which point the one CC divided into 2; this is a historical fact. If I am wrong then prove it and I will concede your point.

It was such a grqadual change that many different dates cited - sometime in 200AD, 300AD,etc. After those early dates the Catholic Church was well on it’s way to becomng what is is today.

OK, I’ll bite. Help me find Jesus’ fledgling church that existed from the time of Pentecost to the advent of the man-made CC, that traversed the centuries alongside the supposed man-made church, the CC, until the 16th century, that MUST still exist today? Please be as direct as I was when answering your questions?

How do you know they didn’t add something to the NT, that shouldn’t have been there (like the 7 OT books that the CC supposedly added) - or exclude something from the bible, that should have been there?

Why trust that the CC safeguarded the sacred writings, but distrust the CC regarding other things? Please be specific, unlike your last response to my last post. Much appreciated.
Because there were hard copies out there. We know when a Book was added or changed.

NT Testament Books (hard copies) - which are now accepted by Christians, but were for a time, in the early church, doubted: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation. Bbooks (hard copies)- now excluded from the canon, but which were embraced as part of the canon: Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans. You know which books were properly included/excluded because the CC made the decision.

Again, how do you know they didn’t add something to the NT, that shouldn’t have been there (like the 7 OT books that the CC supposedly added) - or exclude something from the bible, that should have been there?

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;7031559:

joe370;7028233:

ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t ) - the ministerial priesthood, free will, 4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successores kept them in there) - 7 of the OT, and the teaching that faith without works is dead, just to name a few.

There’s no way you can prove any of this stuff.Hey UniversalGuy…
Martin Luther saying this stuff is not proof enough? See my post 219 for just a few examples. I’m not making this stuff up and I am not trying to censure ML; just quoting ML.

I’m sorry. I’ve caused you to misunderstand me. I mean that it’s just not possible to prove a belief in something. Any belief. You can’t prove that God exists. And you can’t prove that He doesn’t exist.

UniversalistGuy;7031559:

joe370;7028233:

What about the catholic reformation eg, the removal of abuses - that took place alongside the protestant reformation?

But they didn’t remove the doctrine, did they?Nope. Should they; If so then why?

I’m sorry I’m doing it again, causing you to misunderstand me. This time I sound arrogant. The Catholic Church can do what it wants. But I’m saying that it sees fit to keep the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences and that doesn’t sound right to me.

joe370;7028233:

UniversalistGuy;7027519:

I’m still thinking about how relevant/important some of the doctrines are.

OK, but is it really your call or my call to make? God did not send me or you the HS to guide me or you into all truth until the end of time? That came out wrong; a little verbal diarrhea. LOL… I suppose it’s ok to pick and choose, or reject doctrines, based on our interpretation. Free will… I guess I just trust the church founded by God, forever guided by the HS into all truth, doctrinally speaking, but that didn’t happen over night; far from it.

I’m saying that it’s more than just okay to pick and choose doctrines. It is absolutely necessary if there is actually such a thing as a false doctrine, right? And if there are actually false prophets then you can expect them to push false doctrines, right?

UniversalistGuy;7031559:

joe370;7028233:

Also, Jesus’ church is built on Kepha and the EOC rejects that biblical fact, so that was it for me.

Somebody’s oversimplifying Church history.Jesus’ church is not built on Kepha? "…you are cephas and on this cephas I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas, which, when translated, is Peter.”

1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas “; still another, “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

I’ve caused you to misunderstand me yet again. I meant you to tie in oversimplification of Church history to your suggestion that “the EOC rejects that biblical fact.” Fair enough?

UniversalistGuy;7031559:

joe370;7028233:

Well, if you reject purgatory then I can certainly see why you reject indulgences. By the way, the EOC believes in a purgative process they just don’t call it purgatory.

Are you sure about that?If not then why pray for the dead? Those in heaven don’t need our prayers; those in hell have no recourse to them. Research it, if you get the chance, and let me know if I am wrong regarding the EOC’s belief that it is necessary to believe in an intermediate after-death state in which believers are perfected and brought to full glory? If I am wrong I will gladly concede.

As far as I’ve discovered they pray for the dead without really having a dogmatically defined understanding of why they’re doing it. Similarly with the state immediately after death I don’t think there’s a defined dogma in Orthodoxy. So that means there are all sorts of speculations by theologians. And that’s allowed in Orthodoxy I think. And I’ve read about something called tollhouses. But I think the idea of tollhouses is just speculation. Also I have a feeling the Catholic idea that purgation or torturous cleansing from defilement for a couple of centuries is necessary BEFORE entering God’s presence is rejected by the Orthodox because they say that merely entering God’s presence will burn away impurity. Could God do that do you think? Could God burn away impurity by His mere presence and not subject a soul to centuries of torture? I think He would want to anyway.

 

[Cranmer2010]

I started another thread here, titled, “Who was Thomas Cranmer?” The topic of this thread is, "Sola scriptura

Well that’s a false dicotomy Jimmy. Anglicans are not Sola Scriptura. You might want to reconsider the premise there.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Who came first, Queen Mary or King Henry VIII? Answer, King Henry VIII.
Was Queen Mary the head if the Catholic Church? Answer, no.
Was King Henry VIII the head of the Anglican Church of England? Answer, yes.
Was Thomas Cranmer an Anglican Bishop when Henry VIII was King? Answer, Yes.
Is the Protestant Bible named after a former King of England? Answer, yes, King James.

Perhaps you need a bit of a refresher on Anglican History Jimmy. After King Henry VIII died, England was ruled by Bloody Mary who WAS Catholic and ordered the burning at the stake of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley.

 

[StTommyMore]

Perhaps you need a bit of a refresher on Anglican History Jimmy. After King Henry VIII died, England was ruled by Bloody Mary who WAS Catholic and ordered the burning at the stake of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley.

Queen Mary was largely a victim of bad press. As the presses were owned by the Schismatics, this is not to be unexpected.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It was the Catholic Church that closed the Canon on the Old Testament in the 4th century. Learn your history.

For Catholics. Not for the Orthodox or any of the other groups and not for us. Local regional synods are not binding. For Catholics, Trent officially set your canon.

 

[Cranmer2010]

For Catholics. Not for the Orthodox or any of the other groups and not for us. Local regional synods are not binding. For Catholics, Trent officially set your canon.

Which is really sad because Trent was a circus.

 

[StTommyMore]

For Catholics. Not for the Orthodox or any of the other groups and not for us. Local regional synods are not binding. For Catholics, Trent officially set your canon.

You are wrong. the local synods represented the whole Church, and thereby making the Canon an infallible declaration. You anti-Catholic hate-filled rhetoric will not work with those who actually know Church History.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Queen Mary was largely a victim of bad press. As the presses were owned by the Schismatics, this is not to be unexpected.

So then she didn’t have Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley burned at the stake? This after all these years is completely botched history?

 

[StTommyMore]

Which is really sad because Trent was a circus.

Trent wan nothing like a circus. Why don’t you make an argument instead of throwing anti-Catholic barbs

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are wrong. the local synods represented the whole Church, and thereby making the Canon an infallible declaration. You anti-Catholic hate-filled rhetoric will not work with those who actually know Church History.

No they did not represent the whole church or the whole church would have the same canon and they do not. That is a fact. The Oriental Orthodox have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox have a different canon ( I have one right next to me) and we have a different one. The local regional synods are not infallible. However, Trent was infallible and finally determined the matter for the Catholic church. I do not mean to suggest it “added” books. That is a bad apologetical argument that many of my fellow fundamentalists use and should not. The local regional synods in most of the cases approved the same books (although this is sometimes disputed with Esdras and other councils that we do not have as much information on)

 

[Cranmer2010]

Trent wan nothing like a circus. Why don’t you make an argument instead of throwing anti-Catholic barbs

Trent was a circus. It was an attempted distraction for the Catholic faithful to the fact that Luther had left with a sustantial following and a “Last Word” if you will on the wishes for Luther from Rome. Compared with Nicea and others of meaningful measures, it was a joke.

 

[StTommyMore]

Trent was a circus. It was an attempted distraction for the Catholic faithful to the fact that Luther had left with a sustantial following and a “Last Word” if you will on the wishes for Luther from Rome. Compared with Nicea and others of meaningful measures, it was a joke.

You have know proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are wholly ignorant of history.

 

[Dokimas]

The ‘sole’ purpose of Sola Scriptura (no pun intended) is** to justify Protestantism’s rebellion and continued secession from the Catholic Church**. It allows them to ignore 2000 years of Christian history.

This statement is wrong. It’s statements like this from catholics that make me wonder if I’d be accepted into the CC.

 

[StTommyMore]

This statement is wrong. It’s statements like this from catholics that make me wonder if I’d be accepted into the CC.

Actually he is correct. Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine with no purpose other than to draw people away from the True Faith.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Actually he is correct. Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine with no purpose other than to draw people away from the True Faith.

You are the rudest and most naive person I have the misfortune of meeting since coming here. You are wrong on almost everything you say but yet your arrogance will not allow you to realize it. I do not reserve IGNORE for many folks but you most certainly qualify for the honors.

 

[StTommyMore]

You are the rudest and most naive person I have the misfortune of meeting since coming here. You are wrong on almost everything you say but yet your arrogance will not allow you to realize it. I do not reserve IGNORE for many folks but you most certainly qualify for the honors.

Deal with it. Sola Scriptura is a false teaching invented be evil men

 

[Cranmer2010]

Deal with it. Sola Scriptura is a false teaching invented be evil men

IGNORE ST. TOMMYMORE

 

[StTommyMore]

IGNORE ST. TOMMYMORE

For what reason? Becuae you refuse to accept the facts of history and theology?

 

[Dokimas]

Actually he is correct. Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine with no purpose other than to draw people away from the True Faith.

Read the statement more closely. I do not use the doctrine so I have an excuse for not being a catholic.