You can't have it both ways.

[joe370]

;7014856]The purpose of the thread is to question the legitimate nature of my beliefs and other Christians like me. Isn’t it?

I thought it was to learn about the catholic faith? You believe whatever you want to believe and I will always respect that. We just want to share with you why we believe what we believe and don’t believe.

Do you agree with Tommy regarding the Davidic Kingdom and the church/kingdom founded by Jesus, the Davidic king and founder of His church/Kingdom?

 

[StTommyMore]

Joe
I believe that Jesus teaches us how to find Truth. It is by their fruits.
If in reading the history of the Catholic Church, you are comfortable that they have showed the fruits of the spirit, I respect that.
I can say my church has never persecuted or hurt anyone who disagreed with our theology. That matters a lot to me. In fact, I believe it is absolutely essential.

Fundamentalists persecute Catholics on a regular basis.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Whether the actual word is used or not is irrelevant. You must look at the deeper reality of what is occurring. Jesus is establishing himself as the Davidic King. Kings must be anointed.

An anointing of a King that does not contain the word anointing or king…
That is a pretty underwhelming argument. Is this what you mean when you say I do not believe scripture?

 

[StTommyMore]

An anointing of a King that does not contain the word anointing or king…
That is a pretty underwhelming argument. Is this what you mean when you say I do not believe scripture?

If Jesus was not being anointed, then why was he Baptized at all? He did not need to be cleansed from sin.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Fundamentalists persecute Catholics on a regular basis.

People with my beliefs were getting axed a long time ago.
That is just a fact.
It is also a fact that my authority, ie my local church because we do submit ourselves to our elders as Hebrews states, has never persecuted anyone.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If Jesus was not being anointed, then why was he Baptized at all? He did not need to be cleansed from sin.

First of all notice that John said he should be baptized of him, did John think HE was about to be king. No. John was not thinking anything about anointing a king based upon that context alone

Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

It was to fulfill all righteousness, and we can elaborate on that if need be.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I thought it was to learn about the catholic faith? You believe whatever you want to believe and I will always respect that. We just want to share with you why we believe what we believe and don’t believe.

Do you agree with Tommy regarding the Davidic Kingdom and the church/kingdom founded by Jesus, the Davidic king and founder of His church/Kingdom?

You believe that Jimmy’s thread is to learn about the Catholic faith??
No, it is one of many on here to attack the beliefs of people that disagree with your church. And so I come to defend and explain my beliefs and to examine the presuppositions of the attacks on my faith.
And that is what I try to do Joe.
Take care.

 

[Biedrik]

Joe
I believe that Jesus teaches us how to find Truth. It is by their fruits.
If in reading the history of the Catholic Church, you are comfortable that they have showed the fruits of the spirit, I respect that.
I can say my church has never persecuted or hurt anyone who disagreed with our theology. That matters a lot to me. In fact, I believe it is absolutely essential.

All churches would inevitably persecute. It’s just that most of them have not had the authority to do so.

 

[joe370]

Joe

I believe that Jesus teaches us how to find Truth. It is by their fruits.

If in reading the history of the Catholic Church, you are comfortable that they have showed the fruits of the spirit, I respect that.

It’s not by the fruits (actions) - of the members of Jesus’ church, the CC that truth can be found. Truth such as the ones found in sacred scripture can be known because Jesus left the world with a church in His stead, and He gave His church the spirit of truth to guide her, as the bride of Christ, into all truth so that all generations could avail themselves of said truths, according to sacred scripture.

I can say my church has never persecuted or hurt anyone who disagreed with our theology. That matters a lot to me. In fact, I believe it is absolutely essential.

And that’s a good thing and it should matter to you, but that is not the touchstone for finding truth, doctrinally speaking. There have been lots of bad people in the CC, starting with men like Judas who was one of Jesus’ handpicked apostles, especially during the investiture period, and Jesus will say to them: away I never knew you. Jesus never promised that His church/kingdom would be comprised of nothing but good people; quite the contrary, but He did promise that He would send the spirit of truth to guide His church and protect doctrinal truth from within and without, until the end of time:

*Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves … *

 

[Rightlydivide]

All churches would inevitably persecute. It’s just that most of them have not had the authority to do so.

I simply do not believe that. When people persecute others, they can assume authority by any means, legal or otherwise.

 

[Biedrik]

I simply do not believe that. When people persecute others, they can assume authority by any means, legal or otherwise.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Fact is, all humans have an astounding capability for violence, power-lust, hatred, deceit, and pride. Every church will have people who exhibit such behavior, especially if it is one with serious power, because then they will be drawn like moths to a light. From there on out, you have persecution.

 

[joe370]

You believe that Jimmy’s thread is to learn about the Catholic faith??
No, it is one of many on here to attack the beliefs of people that disagree with your church. And so I come to defend and explain my beliefs and to examine the presuppositions of the attacks on my faith.
And that is what I try to do Joe.
Take care.

Well, I was hoping that you would have responded and attempted to refute some of the things I’ve said, but I guess it wasn’t meant to be.

BTW, why do you call it my church? It’s Jesus’ church; Jesus said: I will build my church…I just belong to it.

Please, defend and explain your beliefs, because so far I am not really sure what they are. I don’t even know which church you belong to?

Jimmy asked some really good questions, questions that, ultimately, brought me to the church founded by Jesus, and I am sure it will be very helpful to others struggling with the same impossible questions.

Every single protestant church is comprised of teachers/pastors wielding authority, so why is it so wrong for the CC to teach authoritatively?

Every protestant church derives their authority from their source of authority, the bible and they use their authoritative bibles to undercut and denounce the authority of the one church that gave them their authoritative bible. What’s wrong with this picture???

The CC however, derives her authority from Jesus the Christ, if in fact the CC is the historical church of Matthew 16.

If I am wrong prove it.

Peace brother…

 

[StTommyMore]

First of all notice that John said he should be baptized of him, did John think HE was about to be king. No. John was not thinking anything about anointing a king based upon that context alone

It was to fulfill all righteousness, and we can elaborate on that if need be.

It was also to anoint Him as King. By denying this critical aspect of the Baptism you are all but rejecting the Kingship of Jesus. If he was not anointed, why was he referred to as the Christ? Also, immediately after his Baptism, Jesus is referred to as the Son by the Father, again implying His kingly role. Why is this such a sticking point or you?

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide, let’s assume that you are right and I am wrong. Let’s assume that the inspired word of God (bible alone) - is the sole source of truth and the Christians only authority regarding faith and morals, and everything and anything outside the purview of sacred scripture is extraneous at best.

With that said, surely God left the world with an inspired interpreter for His **inspired word.
**

Can you please identify the inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God?

 

[Izdaari]

Thank you much for answering. So let me ask this. What methodology did you use to reject 10% as error? Was it Prima Scriptura thinking or something else? In other words couldn’t the Catholic Church be 100% right and your understanding of God and what He expects be not quite right? Is that possible?

Yes, I base it on Prima Scriptura thinking. Of course it’s possible the CC is 100% right and I’m wrong – I make no claims to infallibility. But from where I sit, the CC doesn’t seem very infallible either. I’ve been reading their history (according to Garry Wills – a liberalish Catholic), and it’s pretty messed up.

 

[1sicht]

I’m getting more annoyed by the growing number of threads that are simply baited questions, where a person asks, “Why do y’all believe this?”, and when they get a decent response only respond with what amounts to, “HA! Idiot.” I’m also annoyed when every thread with a potential for good discussion veers off topic when people from both sides come in and post cookie-cutter arguments that have been responded to a thousand times.

[SIGN]
You summed it up, Sir![/SIGN]

PS: It seems to me that certain of the baiters, way down deep in their souls, are not so sure of their faith, so they keep having to attack the other side to reassure themselves of the rightness of their own “side.” Pathetic.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The vast majority of those churches came not because of debates over the meaning of random passages, but due to historical reasons. For example, the Methodists came out of the Anglican Church not because they said, “We like our interpretations better!” but because the Anglican Church did not like the Methodists taking Christianity out into the streets, the hospitals, the prisons, and evangelizing to the common folk outside a controlled church setting (Whitefield preaching to the miners, Wesley to those on death row, etc.). Many other divisions came because a church wasn’t following sola scriptura by not following scripture at all. For example, the Evangelical Methodist Church split from the United Methodist Church because the latter was growing more and more liberal. The same with the PCA and Orthodox Presbyterian, who went away from the Presbyterian USA Church. In this manner, the churches were merely following the command of the apostle to “what out” for those who “create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” and “avoid them” (Rom 16:17). You can’t, however, say both these churches were following sola scriptura unless you profess that what the liberal and world-like churches teach are exactly what is taught in scripture (which I don’t think any conservative or rational-minded Roman Catholic would do).

I won’t deny there are perhaps some churches out there who split because of scriptural passages that were disagreed upon, but they would have to identified for that argument to have any merit. As it stands, to blame it on sola scriptura would make as much sense as blaming the division between Roman Catholics, Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, and various Eastern Christian churches on independent scriptural interpretation as well (which, in some ways, you could).

You have made some excellent points here but there are still plenty of examples were divisions were caused by different interpretations, wouldn’t you agree? For example, what makes Luther different from Calvin? Thank you for your post.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You believe that Jimmy’s thread is to learn about the Catholic faith??
No, it is one of many on here to attack the beliefs of people that disagree with your church. And so I come to defend and explain my beliefs and to examine the presuppositions of the attacks on my faith.
And that is what I try to do Joe.
Take care.

Hello Rightlydivide,

When have I not been totally respectful towards you? I don’t have a problem with you, or with the fact that we disagree on some issues here. As a matter of fact, my friend request to you is “still pending”. I wouldn’t have sent that request, some time ago, If I had a some sort of personal problem with you, I don’t.

How is it that when I defend my faith, it is an “attack” and when you do the same, you are just “defending”, “explaining” or “examining the attacks”? Nowhere, in any of my posts is your name mention, where you are attacked and so on and it shouldn’t be necessary for you to make a personal comment about me, as you have here. Please stay on topic and defend the belief in Sola scriptura, if you can. And, accept my friend request.

Thank you for your post

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes, I base it on Prima Scriptura thinking. Of course it’s possible the CC is 100% right and I’m wrong – I make no claims to infallibility. But from where I sit, the CC doesn’t seem very infallible either. I’ve been reading their history (according to Garry Wills – a liberalish Catholic), and it’s pretty messed up.

Infallible does not mean “sinless.” The doctrine of infallibility means that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching in error.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hello Rightlydivide,

When have I not been totally respectful towards you? I don’t have a problem with you, or with the fact that we disagree on some issues here. As a matter of fact, my friend request to you is “still pending”. I wouldn’t have sent that request, some time ago, If I had a some sort of personal problem with you, I don’t.

How is it that when I defend my faith, it is an “attack” and when you do the same, you are just “defending”, “explaining” or “examining the attacks”? Nowhere, in any of my posts is your name mention, where you are attacked and so on and it shouldn’t be necessary for you to make a personal comment about me, as you have here. Please stay on topic and defend the belief in Sola scriptura, if you can. And, accept my friend request.

Thank you for your post

I apologize Jimmy.