PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Real Discussion



catholicdude
Dec 22nd 2008, 10:47 PM
Hi, I'm Zach, I've been a member of this forum for about a week. I'm not a great theologian or apologist but I try. I come here, to the young adult forum and see no discussion of Christianity (basically). Not that I have anything against talking about relationships, everyone needs help, but don't you want to talk about what you came here for? don't you want to discuss your faith and evangelize? Aren't you curious about other denominations and what they believe and how it differs from your beliefs? You might find that you don't necessarily like where you are. I don't have any ideas about things to discuss but I'm sure someone could think of something and I'd be glad to have a discussion with them.

Pax,
Zach

Romber
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:52 AM
I'm assuming if we have questions about Catholicism, you can answer them, right?

Athanasius
Dec 23rd 2008, 05:44 AM
Hi, I'm Zach, I've been a member of this forum for about a week. I'm not a great theologian or apologist but I try. I come here, to the young adult forum and see no discussion of Christianity (basically). Not that I have anything against talking about relationships, everyone needs help, but don't you want to talk about what you came here for? don't you want to discuss your faith and evangelize? Aren't you curious about other denominations and what they believe and how it differs from your beliefs? You might find that you don't necessarily like where you are. I don't have any ideas about things to discuss but I'm sure someone could think of something and I'd be glad to have a discussion with them.

Pax,
Zach

By all means, lead the way.

ilovemetal
Dec 23rd 2008, 08:21 PM
hey bud, there are also other sections of the forum that go more in depth into what you think this perticual section should be talking about....

maturing in christ is my fav....

i got one 4 ya.

how do we know we are saved?

unkerns
Dec 24th 2008, 01:48 AM
I used to be catholic too, Ive done some studies on other religions. Ive got 2 books that I think you might like to read "Pagan christianity" dont let the title scare you away, and "Tangible Kingdom"

Revinius
Dec 25th 2008, 10:04 AM
I find telling people to "ask more questions!" is a little counter-productive. Perhaps if you ask intriguing things then that will fracture off into more questions on other threads. If God wills it it will happen, and if you think this is a necessary thing from Him then pursue it.

catholicdude
Dec 25th 2008, 08:21 PM
I'm assuming if we have questions about Catholicism, you can answer them, right?

If you have any I'll most definitely try to the best of my ability. It may not be the best explanation but I'll do a lot of research before answering.:)

catholicdude
Dec 25th 2008, 08:24 PM
hey bud, there are also other sections of the forum that go more in depth into what you think this perticual section should be talking about....

maturing in christ is my fav....

i got one 4 ya.

how do we know we are saved?

Thanks, I'll look into those.

Now, I'm sure you know what my answer is but here it is anyway...
I don't believe you CAN know you are saved, you can hope for salvation, but you cannot know without a doubt that you will be saved. Also, you are saved by faith and works, not faith alone.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;)

Pax,
Zach

catholicdude
Dec 25th 2008, 08:27 PM
I used to be catholic too, Ive done some studies on other religions. Ive got 2 books that I think you might like to read "Pagan christianity" dont let the title scare you away, and "Tangible Kingdom"

You used to be Catholic? Why'd you leave?

Are these just more books trying to say that Catholicism is Pagan? The second book sounds more like a book about salvation, is it? I might read them, I'm not sure where I'd even get them, I'll look into it.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. Merry Christmas to you all!

unkerns
Dec 25th 2008, 09:04 PM
The first book is about all religion, but its not against the Lord, but for him. It shows the historical transformation from the church of Acts to what we can now. Amazing story, but after reading the bible I saw things that catholicism believed in that was even against the word.

Athanasius
Dec 25th 2008, 09:14 PM
Now, I'm sure you know what my answer is but here it is anyway...

I don't believe you CAN know you are saved, you can hope for salvation, but you cannot know without a doubt that you will be saved. Also, you are saved by faith and works, not faith alone.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;)

Actually, I will make the assertion that the intrinsic witness of the Holy Spirit is assurance enough of our salvation. I know I'm saved, just as I know Jesus is God; there is no doubt in my mind.

It's Christmas so you'll have to excuse me for writing this rather quickly, I'll present my view in full if you wish. With that said however I would also ask if you could present your argument for salvation by works in addition to faith. There are a few things you could mean and I want to be clear on what you're saying.



Are these just more books trying to say that Catholicism is Pagan? The second book sounds more like a book about salvation, is it? I might read them, I'm not sure where I'd even get them, I'll look into it.


Pagan Christianity doesn't speak exclusively of Catholicism but Christianity as a whole. The aim of the book is to raise awareness to the pagan influences which have changed the church - it's a debatable book (most book stores, Christian or not, should carry it).

catholicdude
Dec 25th 2008, 11:15 PM
Actually, I will make the assertion that the intrinsic witness of the Holy Spirit is assurance enough of our salvation. I know I'm saved, just as I know Jesus is God; there is no doubt in my mind.

It's Christmas so you'll have to excuse me for writing this rather quickly, I'll present my view in full if you wish. With that said however I would also ask if you could present your argument for salvation by works in addition to faith. There are a few things you could mean and I want to be clear on what you're saying.

Would you please explain what you mean by the, "intrinsic witness of the Holy Spirit"?

What I am saying is that while a person DOES NEED faith, they ALSO NEED good works, being a good person. Does that help? Just let me know if it means more explaining. Also, I wasn't sure if you wanted Biblical support so I left it out for now, if you want some just let me know.

Pax,
Zach

catholicdude
Dec 25th 2008, 11:17 PM
The first book is about all religion, but its not against the Lord, but for him. It shows the historical transformation from the church of Acts to what we can now. Amazing story, but after reading the bible I saw things that catholicism believed in that was even against the word.

What things are these of which you speak, I'm 100% sure that nothing Catholicism believes is against the Word of God. Give an example and I"ll try to explain.

catholicdude
Dec 25th 2008, 11:18 PM
The first book is about all religion, but its not against the Lord, but for him. It shows the historical transformation from the church of Acts to what we can now. Amazing story, but after reading the bible I saw things that catholicism believed in that was even against the word.

What "things" are these? I'm 100% sure that nothing Catholicism believes is against the Word of God. Give an example and I'll try to explain.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Dec 26th 2008, 06:06 AM
Would you please explain what you mean by the, "intrinsic witness of the Holy Spirit"?

What I am saying is that while a person DOES NEED faith, they ALSO NEED good works, being a good person. Does that help? Just let me know if it means more explaining. Also, I wasn't sure if you wanted Biblical support so I left it out for now, if you want some just let me know.

Pax,
Zach

Please keep in mind that this is a Protestant forum (you may want to acquaint yourself with the rules (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=59397) as well as there are some regarding the promotion of Catholic doctrine) so my answers will generally be coming from that theological tradition.

By intrinsic witness of the Holy Spirit I mean the Holy Spirit speaking directly to that specific person, whoever that person may be. God, through the Holy Spirit speaking to ones own spirit, giving assurances of salvation. This might not be exactly parallel, but I would liken it to the Holy Spirit convicting of sin; it's the same sort of communication between God and believer.

In regards to a person needing faith but also needing good works. I am of the persuasion that Biblically speaking, Scripture is clear as to what's required for salvation - faith in Jesus Christ (by faith I mean faith as defined by historic Christianity [evidential], not as modernity would define faith). I don't believe scripture teaches that we must perform good works in the hope of salvation. As I said above, however, I do believe scripture emphasizes works as being evidential of true and sincere belief, though not a requirement for salvation.

Just to restate as to make myself absolutely clear; I don't believe scripture teaches Jesus plus works equals hope of salvation. So yes, scriptural support would be quite welcomed as I foresee a lot more explaining on both our parts in addition to those who would enter this exchange.

liefm
Dec 26th 2008, 12:35 PM
In regards to salvation.

Faith alone by God's grace, is required for Justification, good deeds/works is not required to be justified in our Lord's eyes, but is EVIDENCE of the fruit of the True Vine and of Sanctification.
It's important not to confuse or mix the 2 distinctions in Salvation which are; Justification and Sanctification.
Justification and Sanctification is ALL by God. We can't say that we earned our salvation because of our "good works", for it is written, our good works are as an unclean and dirty cloth in His sight.

Eph 2:8-9
Jn 3:36
Acts 16:31
Rom 6:23
Jn 3:16
Mark 10:26-27, "26And they were astonished beyond measure, saying unto themselves, `And who is able to be saved?' 27And Jesus, having looked upon them, saith, `With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.'"

The Holy Spirit Himself says through the Apostle, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." - Bold added by me.
The Sacred Eloquence is clear that we are justified by faith, and not by faith and works.

Whoever believes that he merits grace by works despises the merits and grace of Christ; Gal 5:4, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

In regards to doing good works, it is necessary, because it is God's will and command that we do them, but this doesn't mean that we merit grace by good works (Eph 2:8-9).
Eph 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Our God Jesus Christ says in Luke 17:10, "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty." - Italics added by me.

I'll end with the Augsburg Confession And Its Apology,

"Therefore, it is easy to see that this doctrine is not to be accused of banning good works. Instead, it is to be commended all the more because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For without faith, human nature cannot, in any way, do the works of the First and Second Commandment (1 Corinthians 2:14). Without faith, human nature does not call upon God, nor expect anything from Him, nor bear the cross (Matthew 16:24). Instead, human nature seeks and trusts in human help. So when there is no faith and trust in God, all kinds of lusts and human intentions rule in the heart (Genesis 6:5). This is why Christ says, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (JOhn 15:5). (AC XX 27-39)" - Italics added by me.

unkerns
Dec 27th 2008, 03:04 AM
What "things" are these? I'm 100% sure that nothing Catholicism believes is against the Word of God. Give an example and I'll try to explain.

Pax,
Zach

This may be long, but I start with the massive idolatry (Mary, the pope, saints, etc):
Acts 17:29-30

Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stoneóan image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

2 Kings 18:3-5

He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called [b] Nehushtan. [c] )
Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.


Exodus 25:22
There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

Psalms 115:2

Why do the nations say,
"Where is their God?"

3 Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.

4 But their idols are silver and gold,
made by the hands of men.

5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but they cannot see;

6 they have ears, but cannot hear,
noses, but they cannot smell;

7 they have hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but they cannot walk;
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.

8 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them

Also alot of the traditions:
Ephesians 6:12

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Colossians 2:8 (New International Version)

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

There is also the worship of the pope, praying to saints, etc.

catholicdude
Dec 27th 2008, 07:40 PM
Let me start by saying that you in fact ARE justified by your works, and that faith without works is dead. I'll show you...

James 2:20-22;24-26

"20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? . . . 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."

Please note that in both verses 21 and 24 it is said that first Abraham was justified by works, then, in 24, all men are justified by their works, and NOT faith only. We also see in this passage, that faith without works is dead and through works, faith is made perfect.

Now, don't confuse what I'm saying, I do indeed believe that faith is needed, for SALVATION. It's just that, you can only have true faith if you follow Jesus' example and commit good works.

I have also come to the conclusion, liefm, that when we refer to salvation, justification, etc., we are talking about different things. So, if it wouldn't trouble you, could you explain exactly what you mean by these terms? What exactly is justification and salvation to you?

Thanks,
Zach

catholicdude
Dec 27th 2008, 08:15 PM
I'm sorry that you were so misinformed, there is no idolatry in the Catholic Church.

Idolatry is defined as:
1) the worship of a physical object as a god
2) immoderate attatchment or devotion to something
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Idolatry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Idolatry))

First, let's look at the first definition. Let me start off by saying that there are many statues and paintings in every Catholic Church (that I've been to anyway), and, in some, there are kneelers in front of some statues for prayer. The thing is, prayer is all it is. When we pray to a saint, we ask for them to pray to God for us, you might ask why pray to a saint, why not pray to God? This is a legitimate question, and a whole different story, if you really want I can try to explain this too. But anyway, back to the topic. When we pray to a saint while kneeling in front of a statue, we are not praying to the statue, that's absurd. We pray to the person symbolized by the statue. It's similar to carrying around a picture of your family in your wallet/purse. You do not really think the picture itself is your family, but it aids you in remembering them. Statues of saints help of remember them and their lives, when we know the lives of the saints we can try to be like them and devote ourselves more to God just as they did.

To summarize what I've said, the statues and paintings help us to remember who the statue or painting represents. By knowing the lives of saints we hope to be better Christians, and we ask for the saints to pray for us in this endeavor.

Now, definition number two. As you may have seen, I bolded the word something in the definition. You may say that this doesn't mean anything, but on the contrary, it completely proves that there is no idolatry in the Catholic Church. Considering you take into account what Catholics really belive regarding the first definition, which I have told you. The word something refers to physical objects as opposed to the word someone that refers to humans. So when you know that Catholics do not worship objects as I have stated we can conclude that Catholics do not give immoderat attatchment or devotion to them either.

As for your problem with traditions, I'll cover that in another post. I'm going to take a break for a little bit and get my brain back :D.

Hope this helps,
Zach

unkerns
Dec 27th 2008, 10:39 PM
So how would a statue of a saint be any different than the golden calf, the golden calf was created to be just like the saint statues are to us. The difference between one of them and a picture in your wallet you would not pray to the picture. Exodus 20 says not to make idols of anything in HEAVEN above, also the Lord even says that he came on mount Horeb with no image so they would not make an idol out of him. Another thing is that Jesus said that ONLY he is the mediator between us and the Lord, so how would someone who is both dead and not even divine be able to handle of prayers when Jesus himeself is the only one. Another instance is the Mary and Jesus statues, especially the fact that Jesus would have looked nothing like that. Do you notice how Mary is always held above Jesus?

The definition say devotion to something, devotion is showed by praying to statues, lighting candles to them, praying a rosery to Mary, lighting incents to them.

catholicdude
Dec 28th 2008, 12:13 AM
So how would a statue of a saint be any different than the golden calf, the golden calf was created to be just like the saint statues are to us. The difference between one of them and a picture in your wallet you would not pray to the picture. Exodus 20 says not to make idols of anything in HEAVEN above, also the Lord even says that he came on mount Horeb with no image so they would not make an idol out of him. Another thing is that Jesus said that ONLY he is the mediator between us and the Lord, so how would someone who is both dead and not even divine be able to handle of prayers when Jesus himeself is the only one. Another instance is the Mary and Jesus statues, especially the fact that Jesus would have looked nothing like that. Do you notice how Mary is always held above Jesus?

The definition say devotion to something, devotion is showed by praying to statues, lighting candles to them, praying a rosery to Mary, lighting incents to them.

It is different because the golden calf was actually being worshiped. We don't make idols out of statues because we do not worship a chunk of marble/plaster, we worship God alone. We pray to the person it represents, I can't stress that enough. We pray not to the statue, but to the person it represents.

I agree that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. But, let me ask you something, if one of your parents ask you to pray for them (for whatever reason), would you? I would, but, isn't that being a mediator also? It is, but it isn't the same as Christs' mediatorship. Paul himself asked Christians to pray on his behalf, that's being a mediator. But this is a very miniscule mediatorship compared to Christs', our mediation completely depends on His mediation which is infinitely more powerful than anyone elses. While saints may be dead in flesh, the soul is immortal, it lives forever. The saints are closer to God than anyone on earth is and will be as long as they are still here. I sure don't think it would hurt to ask someone so close to God to pray for you, not at all.

What exactly do you mean by Mary being held higher than Jesus? I don't really understand what you mean.

As for your last comment, I have explained it again here. The prayers aren't to the statue, they are to the person represented by the statue.

unkerns
Dec 28th 2008, 03:43 AM
Asking someone else to pray for you is intercessory not mediator. Abraham did it for lot, but his prayers went straight to the Lord not through someone else. Those saints are dead, they have a heavenly body. They have not been given divine power because that belongs to the Lord alone, and also by biblical definition I would be a saint as well.

Heres the biggest question of all why even have statues, why bow down in front of them, light candles in front of them, light incents in front of them, pray the rosary? Did you know that the pope himself uses the mithras sun wheel for his symbol, did you know that there is an ashera pole in the middle of st peters square? If the Lord is nuber one then you dont need any statues or prayer cards. No need to pray to the saint of lost things anymore to find your stuff, because the Lord says only to pray to him.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (New International Version)

10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

Then again many dont listen to the Lord even when its written in black and white:

Jeremiah 44:16-18 (New International Version)

16 "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! 17 We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. 18 But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."

The last question was about catholic belief in Mary being the Queen of heaven and holding her higher in every aspect.

Athanasius
Dec 28th 2008, 04:23 AM
It is different because the golden calf was actually being worshiped. We don't make idols out of statues because we do not worship a chunk of marble/plaster, we worship God alone. We pray to the person it represents, I can't stress that enough. We pray not to the statue, but to the person it represents.

Exodus 20:1-4
Then God spoke all these words, saying,"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

catholicdude
Dec 28th 2008, 09:10 AM
Asking someone else to pray for you is intercessory not mediator. Abraham did it for lot, but his prayers went straight to the Lord not through someone else. Those saints are dead, they have a heavenly body. They have not been given divine power because that belongs to the Lord alone, and also by biblical definition I would be a saint as well.

Heres the biggest question of all why even have statues, why bow down in front of them, light candles in front of them, light incents in front of them, pray the rosary? Did you know that the pope himself uses the mithras sun wheel for his symbol, did you know that there is an ashera pole in the middle of st peters square? If the Lord is nuber one then you dont need any statues or prayer cards. No need to pray to the saint of lost things anymore to find your stuff, because the Lord says only to pray to him.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (New International Version)

10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

Then again many dont listen to the Lord even when its written in black and white:

Jeremiah 44:16-18 (New International Version)

16 "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! 17 We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. 18 But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."

The last question was about catholic belief in Mary being the Queen of heaven and holding her higher in every aspect.

I used the term mediator in my last post because you thought I was saying that saints are equal mediators with Christ, which I don't believe. Christ is the one and only mediator, I was merely showing that what the saints do is to a very limited extent mediation, but nothing compared to the mediation of Christ. Intercessory is indeed the correct term which Catholics do use, I was just trying to use the word mediator to illustrate a point. A point I obviously didn't make very clear. Catholics also do not think that saints have divine power, they obviously can hear our prayers and give them to God according to the Book of Revelation:

Rev. 5:8

"8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints."

This verse shows that the saints in heaven offer up the prayers of the saints on earth to Christ.


Why use statues? Because God in fact does instruct the making of statues, just not to the point of worship. Catholics do not worship statues as I have shown several times. Here is some scriptural warrant for my accusations:

Ex. 25:18-20

"18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. 19 Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. 20 Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered."

Num. 21:8-9

"8 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed."

1 Chr. 28:18-19

"18 And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the cherubims spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. 19 All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord that I might understand all the works of the pattern."

All three of these instances God instucts them to create something of likeness to something in heaven or on earth. But as I've said many times before, until the point of worship, when people begin to worship these objects is when God becomes angered. Catholics DO NOT worship anyone/thing but God alone.

Bowing/kneeling in front of a statue is nothing more than a praying posture. The candles and inscence (sp.?) has to do with Rev. 5:8 I think, not completely sure. About the rosary, I'm assuming you have the typical Protestant view of the rosary which seems to be, wow, ten Hail Mary's for every one Our Father? They must adore Mary more than God! This notion is wholly untrue, the purpose of the rosary is to help us meditate on the life of Christ. That's what we are doing the entire time we recite a rosary, meditating on Christs' life. Ok, for the mithras sun wheel comment, I think you are refering to the picture above the alter in St. Peter's Basilica (correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, you are mistaken. This image is actually a representation of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove exuding rays of light, I'm pretty sure Protestants use the dove motif as well, don't they? That's not an asherah pole in the middle of St. Peter's Square, all it is is an obelisk. Nothing more and nothing less. The Lord is number one and should be prayed to, but, nothing in scripture says that you cannot pray to anyone but the Lord. The fact that sems to be overlooked here is that praying to Mary and the saints is not even a Church doctrine that everyone has to believe, you can believe in it if you want ( It certainly can't hurt ), but no one in the Church has ever said that every member has to pray to Mary and the saints.

The quote from Deutoronomy is being taken out of context, as you can plainly see, the text is refering to people that try to communicate with the dead by means of crystal balls and the like. This is an abomination to God and should not be practiced, but it is not the same as prayer. Also, what do you think the word "consults" means? In other translations, it reads "seeks oracles from the dead" -NAB and "seeketh the truth from the dead" -DR. As you can see, this has nothing to do with praying to the dead, but seeking God's truth from them and not from Him.

As for your quote from Jeremiah, the "Queen of Heaven" that the Egyptians are talking about is actually the moon, which they worshiped. This explains why they had "perished by sword and famine."

Hold her higher than who? God? If that's the case, I can tell you it's not true, please give an example.

Zach

P.S. This is also an answer to your post Xel'Naga

Athanasius
Dec 28th 2008, 10:27 AM
Rev. 5:8

"8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints."

This verse shows that the saints in heaven offer up the prayers of the saints on earth to Christ.

This one verse alone does not show what you claim it does.



Why use statues? Because God in fact does instruct the making of statues, just not to the point of worship. Catholics do not worship statues as I have shown several times. Here is some scriptural warrant for my accusations:

Ex. 25:18-20

"18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. 19 Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. 20 Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered."

Num. 21:8-9

"8 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed."

1 Chr. 28:18-19

"18 And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the cherubims spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. 19 All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord that I might understand all the works of the pattern."

All three of these instances God instucts them to create something of likeness to something in heaven or on earth. But as I've said many times before, until the point of worship, when people begin to worship these objects is when God becomes angered. Catholics DO NOT worship anyone/thing but God alone.

Exodus 25 - ark of the covenant (not a statue)
Numbers 21 - bronze serpent (statuesque)
1 Chronicles 28 - the temple of the Lord (not a statue)

Your examples don't really hold up that well. It would be like quoting the New Testament passage where the Holy Spirit is described as a dove, saying, "Look, the Holy Spirit is given the image of a dove" and then writing a book and describing the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman, when scripture says not to do such a thing. God can do such a thing; we can't. However...

It really doesn't matter that your comparisons don't hold as the scripture I posted is quite clearly in regards only to God (don't make any images of God, not, "don't make any images"). For instance, don't create a gold calf, designate it the "god which brought us out of Egypt" and start worshiping it either as a calf (god itself) or as a representation of the God (YHWH) that did in fact bring you out of Egypt. So unless a church is making representations of God, I'm not all that concerned.

If unkerns wants to debate with you regarding prayers offered to the "saints," then that is something he can occupy himself with. The difficulty you're going to have is defending the practice without promoting Catholic doctrine and quite frankly... Someone should let the Catholic church know that Jesus opened the way for direct communication between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). There's no need to pray to a dead "saint" (I wouldn't call them saints) who can't hear you anyway.

Revinius
Dec 28th 2008, 01:24 PM
It would be like quoting the New Testament passage where the Holy Spirit is described as a dove, saying, "Look, the Holy Spirit is given the image of a dove" and then writing a book and describing the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman,

Lol, the Shack.

Athanasius
Dec 28th 2008, 06:45 PM
Lol, the Shack.

My mom came to talk to me the other day, horrified after hearing an interview with the author of the Shack. She left perplexed, wondering why I own such books.

Romber
Dec 28th 2008, 07:32 PM
Coming back to this thread, I do have a question (if you are still around)

At another forum the inevitable Gay Marriage debate came up, only in the disguise of California passing Proposition 8 (banning of gay marriage). The entire debate was going well until a Catholic came in and said that Gay marriage is technically ok in Catholicism, but the actual 'homosexual sex' was not ok. Thus Catholicism looks down on Gay marriage as bad only because it promotes 'homosexual sex'-which is the only sin pertaining to Gay people.

From all that, this is what I understood:

Homosexuality is not a sin
The only true sin is homosexual sex (with context)
It is technically ok to be a homosexual that is married, as long as you don't have sex

Note-The person could not provide any scripture to back up his claims.

So, I guess a little clarity on the Catholic Church's position would be great, and their reasonings (ie. Scriptural proof) of such a belief.

unkerns
Dec 28th 2008, 11:01 PM
You answered your own question: GOD instructs them to create these things, everything else that MAN created was considered idols. The Lord even had the serpent staff destroyed 2 Kings 18:3-5

He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.

As for Revelation not only is that book impossible for us to interpret, but in no way points to praying to the saints.

As for the scripture about talking to the dead: remember when Saul consulted a medium and talked to Elijah? Do you remember hoe mad Elijah was? Its in the book, dont consult with the dead.

Also when I was catholic I prayed the holy Mary's, the belief is that you wont have pain in your death by doing so (for some reason people think she has that power). Just like the scapular which catholics believe will save you even from the worst of sins just by wearing, I dont believe in worshipping the dove or crosses either, they are images as well That isnt even the cross that Jesus was crucified, the type they used for his crucifixion was in the shape of a T it was the only thing functional during that time.

It is true that you dont have to pray to Mary, but it is catholic doctrine that she is the queen of heaven, which the bible does not support and before you bring up Revelation, the stars can represent the angels of the churchs and much more and again it is Revelation and cannot be fully translated.

Also most catholic sanctuaries have statues of her all around, sometimes she holds a baby Jesus, and thats about it for their statues unless they got a couple of saints around, or how about the massive marches with her statue done around the world, and in most catholic paintings Mary is usually in front and Jesus in back or of course as a baby.

Now as for the scripture about Jeremiah that was not brought up about Mary, but just as an instance in history.

Oh and im not protestant, I dont do religion

laundrygirl
Jan 4th 2009, 02:33 AM
The first book is about all religion, but its not against the Lord, but for him. It shows the historical transformation from the church of Acts to what we can now. Amazing story, but after reading the bible I saw things that catholicism believed in that was even against the word.


How is the knowledge of the truth known only by you, that you know for certain that Catholicism is false? What is your authority, besides your own mind and your own interpretation? Read 2 Peter 1:20, and Acts 8:30-31. You need a Church with apostolic authority in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors. Otherwise, you are one who values your own opinions before the Truth; you are allowed to make Christianity whatever you please and you enslave God to your own whims.

Are you aware that there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the Bible - monks, religious - who have not found contradiction but affirmation that the Catholic Church is the Truth? How long have you studied the Bible, and how far in depth, that you can say that "it is against the Word"? How is it that these things have been revealed to you? What authority do you trust in to interpret the Bible? The eunuch in the passage from Acts read the Bible but needed an interpreter; beyond that, the letter from Peter states that some things in Scripture are difficult to interpret and therefore one needs an authority - otherwise one will be led astray, as you yourself have been.

Have you read writings from the early Christians? Irenaeus? Ignatius? Augustine? Eusebius? Or perhaps you do not think they are Christians because you have your own idea of Christianity.

JesusIsLord82
Jan 4th 2009, 02:51 AM
How is the knowledge of the truth known only by you, that you know for certain that Catholicism is false? What is your authority, besides your own mind and your own interpretation? Read 2 Peter 1:20, and Acts 8:30-31. You need a Church with apostolic authority in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors. Otherwise, you are one who values your own opinions before the Truth; you are allowed to make Christianity whatever you please and you enslave God to your own whims.

Are you aware that there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the Bible - monks, religious - who have not found contradiction but affirmation that the Catholic Church is the Truth? How long have you studied the Bible, and how far in depth, that you can say that "it is against the Word"? How is it that these things have been revealed to you? What authority do you trust in to interpret the Bible? The eunuch in the passage from Acts read the Bible but needed an interpreter; beyond that, the letter from Peter states that some things in Scripture are difficult to interpret and therefore one needs an authority - otherwise one will be led astray, as you yourself have been.

Have you read writings from the early Christians? Irenaeus? Ignatius? Augustine? Eusebius? Or perhaps you do not think they are Christians because you have your own idea of Christianity.

I totally agree LG.

Athanasius
Jan 4th 2009, 02:59 AM
How is the knowledge of the truth known only by you, that you know for certain that Catholicism is false? What is your authority, besides your own mind and your own interpretation? Read 2 Peter 1:20, and Acts 8:30-31. You need a Church with apostolic authority in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors. Otherwise, you are one who values your own opinions before the Truth; you are allowed to make Christianity whatever you please and you enslave God to your own whims.

Are you aware that there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the Bible - monks, religious - who have not found contradiction but affirmation that the Catholic Church is the Truth? How long have you studied the Bible, and how far in depth, that you can say that "it is against the Word"? How is it that these things have been revealed to you? What authority do you trust in to interpret the Bible? The eunuch in the passage from Acts read the Bible but needed an interpreter; beyond that, the letter from Peter states that some things in Scripture are difficult to interpret and therefore one needs an authority - otherwise one will be led astray, as you yourself have been.

Have you read writings from the early Christians? Irenaeus? Ignatius? Augustine? Eusebius? Or perhaps you do not think they are Christians because you have your own idea of Christianity.

First things first:

The first book is about all religion, but its not against the Lord, but for him. It shows the historical transformation from the church of Acts to what we can now. Amazing story, but after reading the bible I saw things that catholicism believed in that was even against the word.

He said things, not the entire Catholic church. Calm down.

Secondly, you're way off base... If I respond to you, you going to be able to keep your cool? Because there are things I disagree with, your interpretation(s) are wrong. I won't make apologies for being so straight forward.

Athanasius
Jan 4th 2009, 08:39 AM
How is the knowledge of the truth known only by you, that you know for certain that Catholicism is false? What is your authority, besides your own mind and your own interpretation? Read 2 Peter 1:20, and Acts 8:30-31. You need a Church with apostolic authority in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors. Otherwise, you are one who values your own opinions before the Truth; you are allowed to make Christianity whatever you please and you enslave God to your own whims.

No one here (including unkerns) is making the claim that Catholicism is entirely false. As I previously pointed out, however, unkerns does have issue with teachings specific to the Catholic church and how those teachings relate to the Bible (and conflict with the Bible). Please do not misconstrue what unkerns has said. It's unkind, unfair, and you're only attacking a straw man. I'm certain unkerns is not appreciative of this sort of thing, neither am I.

Now you've made this claim that a church with apostolic authority is required in order to correctly interpret Scripture and you've provided us with two scriptures which I'm assuming you believe substantiate your view. We find these two scriptures posted below. I hope you don't mind, I prefer the New American Standard Version.

Let me quote 2 Peter 1:20:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

Now allow me to quote Acts 8:30-31:

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Lets discuss 2 Peter 1:20 (for no other reason than you've listed it first). You're actually guilty of taking this verse out of context (you know the saying, "a text without a context is a pretext"). On it's own this verse does appear to be teaching exactly what you're claiming. However, when you look at the verse within its larger context - proceeding and preceding verses, chapters and finally the book and entire Bible - you begin to see (or should begin to see) that Peter isn't saying quite what you're suggesting.

Lets quote a larger section of scripture; 2 Peter 1:16-21:

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

You'll have to excuse me, I hate artificial divisors (verse separations, in this instance).

Now when reading this entire section of scripture it occurs to me and should occur to anyone else (and this will be agreed upon by a great many people), that Peter is referring to the origin of scripture (which starts v.21 with the words "for no prophecy..."), rather than the interpretation of scripture. Essentially, scripture interprets scripture; don't take things out of context; don't do what Laundrygirl has just done. It would be ridiculous for Peter to be claiming what you're claiming in this thread. Do you realize how nonsensical it is for Peter to have meant what you're saying he meant?

Coming to Acts 8:30-31 (You have to read Acts 8:25-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:25-40;&version=49;)) we have exactly the same issue. You've created a theology based on two verses which have been taken out of context. The bigger issue now is that Acts 8, which was predicated upon 2 Peter, has lost its foundation as 2 Peter was incorrectly interpreted by you (and / or the Catholic church). Now it should quickly be said that neither of these verses make the explicitly or implicit claim that, "Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors". This is something either you or someone else has read into the text, a practice known as eisegetics.



Are you aware that there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the Bible - monks, religious - who have not found contradiction but affirmation that the Catholic Church is the Truth? How long have you studied the Bible, and how far in depth, that you can say that "it is against the Word"? How is it that these things have been revealed to you? What authority do you trust in to interpret the Bible? The eunuch in the passage from Acts read the Bible but needed an interpreter; beyond that, the letter from Peter states that some things in Scripture are difficult to interpret and therefore one needs an authority - otherwise one will be led astray, as you yourself have been.

The eunuch in Acts asked the question before He confessed Christ, did it occur to you that he knew nothing of Jewish scripture? The fact that Philip was there was God's providence, not God's affirmation of your claim which has been read into the text that, "one needs an apostle or a descendant of an apostle to interpret scripture". Philip knew scripture the eunuch did not; of course Philip is going to have to explain what Isaiah has written.



Have you read writings from the early Christians? Irenaeus? Ignatius? Augustine? Eusebius? Or perhaps you do not think they are Christians because you have your own idea of Christianity.

I'll answer these for myself; yes, I've read these Christian authors and many more. I'm studying exegetical theology (as well as having my hand in analytical philosophy). I've been studying these fields for over a decade now (I know, I'm still young and starting out). How about you? Perhaps you would make for an interesting debate?

Revinius
Jan 4th 2009, 10:49 AM
How is the knowledge of the truth known only by you, that you know for certain that Catholicism is false? What is your authority, besides your own mind and your own interpretation? Read 2 Peter 1:20, and Acts 8:30-31. You need a Church with apostolic authority in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors. Otherwise, you are one who values your own opinions before the Truth; you are allowed to make Christianity whatever you please and you enslave God to your own whims.

Are you aware that there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the Bible - monks, religious - who have not found contradiction but affirmation that the Catholic Church is the Truth? How long have you studied the Bible, and how far in depth, that you can say that "it is against the Word"? How is it that these things have been revealed to you? What authority do you trust in to interpret the Bible? The eunuch in the passage from Acts read the Bible but needed an interpreter; beyond that, the letter from Peter states that some things in Scripture are difficult to interpret and therefore one needs an authority - otherwise one will be led astray, as you yourself have been.

No offence, but you are drawing a nice fat straw man and burning it. Also, appealing to authority is also fallacious in a premise unless it is merely quoting someone's discovery of evidence that you agree with.


Have you read writings from the early Christians? Irenaeus? Ignatius? Augustine? Eusebius? Or perhaps you do not think they are Christians because you have your own idea of Christianity.

These people are part of the early church, many of whom were instrumental in creating orthodoxy. The issue is that you are going to have a hard time drawing on them to support a view that RC teaching is in line with their's.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 4th 2009, 08:25 PM
This is quickly turning from discussion to "lets all have a go at each other"
Don't take your own sides, just be on God's side

Athanasius
Jan 4th 2009, 10:22 PM
This is quickly turning from discussion to "lets all have a go at each other"
Don't take your own sides, just be on God's side

Truth has a tendency to divide. It's learning how to disagree without being disagreeable that is the challenge.

Revinius
Jan 4th 2009, 11:02 PM
This is quickly turning from discussion to "lets all have a go at each other"
Don't take your own sides, just be on God's side

I agree with Xel'. We collectively need to know how to control our emotions and not murder people in our hearts simply because we disagree with them. We need to look at things rationally and be willing to change our view if we have little basis for it.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 5th 2009, 07:58 AM
Good :D

In that case I'll give my view:

I don't think there is anything in catholisism that is against God (with obviously a few exceptions such as glorifying Mary), but I think there are things in catholisism that can hinder relationships with God.

Once you start throwing tradition, rituals and religous exercises into your relationship with God, you can start to miss the simplicity and beauty of that relationship. This does happen in protestant denominations as well (unfortanatly), but it is more of a problem in catholisism, where people can mistake ritual and doctrine for a relationship with God.

Just my two pennies (I'm English)

Revinius
Jan 5th 2009, 01:07 PM
Good :D

In that case I'll give my view:

I don't think there is anything in catholisism that is against God (with obviously a few exceptions such as glorifying Mary), but I think there are things in catholisism that can hinder relationships with God.

Once you start throwing tradition, rituals and religous exercises into your relationship with God, you can start to miss the simplicity and beauty of that relationship. This does happen in protestant denominations as well (unfortanatly), but it is more of a problem in catholisism, where people can mistake ritual and doctrine for a relationship with God.

Just my two pennies (I'm English)

What about the supposed infalibility of the pope? is that not reason enough to presume an anti-christian stance of the church at a doctrine level?

Friend of Jesus
Jan 5th 2009, 09:23 PM
What about the supposed infalibility of the pope? is that not reason enough to presume an anti-christian stance of the church at a doctrine level?

The Pope is appointed by men whereas only God can appoint apostles, pastors, evangelists etc. The Pope is a man prone to getting things wrong, and yes he definately not Biblical. But doctrine isn't the heart of Christianity, and someone with wrong doctrine but with a right relationship with God is still a Christian.

Revinius
Jan 5th 2009, 10:38 PM
The Pope is appointed by men whereas only God can appoint apostles, pastors, evangelists etc. The Pope is a man prone to getting things wrong, and yes he definately not Biblical. But doctrine isn't the heart of Christianity, and someone with wrong doctrine but with a right relationship with God is still a Christian.

Theology/Doctrine is the centre of a right relationship. If your doctrine is radically unfaithful then there can be no salvation and no relationship. There is a trend in new age evangelicalism to 'not worry about theology' (knowing God) and instead focus on something else. The problem is, without a theological basis, that 'something else' has no foundation on which to stand.

Christians can attend an RC church just as a Christian can be in a supermarket, but the real issue is whether the RC has a right basis for their being. After all what is it that differentiates us from the pagans but our full submission to the authority of Christ, not to any man or institution seperate from Him.

Do you get what i am saying regarding a right relationship needing a right foundation? Christ even refer's to himself as the cornerstone. :)

Cara Lott
Jan 6th 2009, 05:11 AM
I agree with Revinus: doctrine is key to a good foundation and relationship with God. For example, Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses claim to believe the same things Protestans do, yet if you look at their doctrines and theology it obviously doesn't correspond to what the Bible says. You wouldn't say that just because Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses believe in God and believe that Jesus exsisted that they are saved? Of course not!

I will say, though I haven't really studied this, that I believe one can be truly saved and remain a member of the Catholic church, but he/she should be sure that he/she doesn't follow any of the practices and traditions of the church that conflict with the Bible. I guess it would be kind of like being a born-again Jew (I don't remember what that's called)? I will also add that I've never been Catholic and the people I've known who were Catholic but now follow Protestant teachings have no desire to rejoin the Catholic church.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 6th 2009, 02:32 PM
In a way you're right, but in another way you've misunderstood me.

I said that what matters is a relationship with God; clearly mormons nor Jehovah's witnesses have this. I said that doctrine isn't the heart of Christianity, I didn't say it doesn't matter.

Obviously if the doctrine you have is "I am saved because I have done good things, God is in my life to make it easier" then clearly you do not have a relationship with God and are not saved. But doctrine such as praying to saints that are supposed to pass on the prayers to God, is wrong, but won't hinder your salvation.

So yes theology is important, however there are Christians who have strong relationships with God, but have never read a Bible because they don't have access to one. Similarly there are people who are fed watered down pieces of the word their entire lives, but they are still close the Lord.

One other thing is that often people get so caught up in arguing over the fine print in the Bible that they miss the point of the whole thing.

So my view on Catholicism is that while it can often do more harm than good, the good shouldn't be ignored by denouncing the whole faith.

Revinius
Jan 6th 2009, 11:24 PM
In a way you're right, but in another way you've misunderstood me.

I said that what matters is a relationship with God; clearly mormons nor Jehovah's witnesses have this. I said that doctrine isn't the heart of Christianity, I didn't say it doesn't matter.

Obviously if the doctrine you have is "I am saved because I have done good things, God is in my life to make it easier" then clearly you do not have a relationship with God and are not saved. But doctrine such as praying to saints that are supposed to pass on the prayers to God, is wrong, but won't hinder your salvation.

So yes theology is important, however there are Christians who have strong relationships with God, but have never read a Bible because they don't have access to one. Similarly there are people who are fed watered down pieces of the word their entire lives, but they are still close the Lord.

One other thing is that often people get so caught up in arguing over the fine print in the Bible that they miss the point of the whole thing.

So my view on Catholicism is that while it can often do more harm than good, the good shouldn't be ignored by denouncing the whole faith.

I think we as Christians should denounce any clearly false teaching on the stuff that really matters (trinity, salvation by faith, Deity of Jesus etc etc). I go back to my point that a Christian in the RC is like a Christian in a supermarket. It does not matter so much where you are located if you are with God, but the supermarket has the same amount of theological truth as the RC does. The doctrine of a church on the important things is actually so important to the Kingdom i would say there is a link between it's sheep and the growth of the Kingdom.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 7th 2009, 07:48 AM
I would say that the Catholic Church has lost the plot, but I wouldn't compare it to a supermarket. Reason being is that someone can grasp the truth obscured behind the religion and the rituals and the wierd theology; whereas it is next to impossible to do that in a supermarket, where there is nothing that even hints at the truth.

Another thing that should be considered is that not everyone who attends a RC church agrees with all of the teaching, and that they might have become a Christian prior to becoming Catholic.

catholicdude
Jan 8th 2009, 12:37 AM
This one verse alone does not show what you claim it does.

Really? How? Why didn't you back up your claim with evidence or good reasoning? Also, if that verse doesn't prove my point, how is yours proved with just one, a misinterpreted one at that.



Exodus 25 - ark of the covenant (not a statue)
Numbers 21 - bronze serpent (statuesque)
1 Chronicles 28 - the temple of the Lord (not a statue)

Your examples don't really hold up that well. It would be like quoting the New Testament passage where the Holy Spirit is described as a dove, saying, "Look, the Holy Spirit is given the image of a dove" and then writing a book and describing the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman, when scripture says not to do such a thing. God can do such a thing; we can't. However...

It really doesn't matter that your comparisons don't hold as the scripture I posted is quite clearly in regards only to God (don't make any images of God, not, "don't make any images"). For instance, don't create a gold calf, designate it the "god which brought us out of Egypt" and start worshiping it either as a calf (god itself) or as a representation of the God (YHWH) that did in fact bring you out of Egypt. So unless a church is making representations of God, I'm not all that concerned.

If unkerns wants to debate with you regarding prayers offered to the "saints," then that is something he can occupy himself with. The difficulty you're going to have is defending the practice without promoting Catholic doctrine and quite frankly... Someone should let the Catholic church know that Jesus opened the way for direct communication between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). There's no need to pray to a dead "saint" (I wouldn't call them saints) who can't hear you anyway.


Exodus 25 - Cherubim (statue)
Numbers 21 - Bronze Serpent (what's the difference?)
1 Chronicles 28 - Make a likeness to the chariot of the cherubim (statue)

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the whole Holy Spirit dove thing, I'm obviously missing something :P

The thing is, you're still talking about worshiping a chunk of material, Catholics do not do that. We use images and statues to help us remember and think more clearly. There is no worship of anything but God going on in the Catholic Church.

First of all, even if you don't agree that saints can hear our prayers and bring them to God, you should admit that people in Heaven are saints considering the Revelations verse is refering to people in Heaven as saints. Second of all, you act as if the Church hasn't read the Bible, we know Jesus opened the way for direct communication to God. But I don't think Jesus ever says that you are only supposed to pray to Him all the time. I may be wrong, but I think that's right, please correct me with scripture if I'm seriously mistaken. I still use my Revelation example to prove that saints hear us.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. sorry this reply took forever, my computer got a bad virus and I haven't gotten it back from my friend yet. right now I'm using a friends computer.

catholicdude
Jan 8th 2009, 12:51 AM
Ok, Ok, I have a question for you guys and gals. I hear Protestants always talking about having "a personal relationship with God," could you explain what you mean by this? I'm slightly confused.

And for the record, I believe theology and doctrine are very important in matters of salvation. Also, Revinus (I think you said this, sorry if you didn't), it is necessary to look to the Early Church fathers' writings. These writings show what the earliest Christians believe, and I believe, if someone truly envelopes themselves in study of the Early Church, they will come to see the complete truth the Catholic Church has to offer for everyone that will listen with an open mind, and more importantly, an open heart.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2009, 02:43 AM
Really? How? Why didn't you back up your claim with evidence or good reasoning? Also, if that verse doesn't prove my point, how is yours proved with just one, a misinterpreted one at that.

Simply because it doesn't... You would need to pull in the surrounding verses to show what you're claiming this one verse shows. When you've failed to initially substantiate your "point" then there's not much more I need to say other than, "You've failed to show your point".

So again, that one verse simply doesn't say what you're claiming it says.



The thing is, you're still talking about worshiping a chunk of material, Catholics do not do that. We use images and statues to help us remember and think more clearly. There is no worship of anything but God going on in the Catholic Church.

You must have overlooked where I said:

the scripture I posted is quite clearly in regards only to God (don't make any images of God, not, "don't make any images"). For instance, don't create a gold calf, designate it the "god which brought us out of Egypt" and start worshiping it either as a calf (god itself) or as a representation of the God (YHWH) that did in fact bring you out of Egypt. So unless a church is making representations of God, I'm not all that concerned.



First of all, even if you don't agree that saints can hear our prayers and bring them to God, you should admit that people in Heaven are saints considering the Revelations verse is refering to people in Heaven as saints. Second of all, you act as if the Church hasn't read the Bible, we know Jesus opened the way for direct communication to God. But I don't think Jesus ever says that you are only supposed to pray to Him all the time. I may be wrong, but I think that's right, please correct me with scripture if I'm seriously mistaken. I still use my Revelation example to prove that saints hear us.

I was referring to the "Saints" as the Catholic church has designated them, not the "Saints" as referred to in scripture; I don't believe they are the same people.

So because you don't recall Jesus saying, "only pray in my name" you're going to assume you're to pray in Jesus' name and in the name of others? And you're trying to convince me that the church has read the Bible? You realize that sounds like nonsense, right? "Jesus opened the way for direct communication with God... You just don't always have to pray in His name!" No no, John 14:13-14... Pray in Jesus' name; that's where all the power is.

Cara Lott
Jan 10th 2009, 03:53 AM
Ok, Ok, I have a question for you guys and gals. I hear Protestants always talking about having "a personal relationship with God," could you explain what you mean by this? I'm slightly confused. "Christian-ese" terminolorgy can sometimes be vague and I don't think everyone who uses it knows what they mean by it. So, I'm just going to explain what I mean when I use the phrase "personal relationship with God."

I view God as a person (though not a human being) who I can approach and interact with personally. I don't say relate to because what human can relate to a diety? I can't even relate to His view of time, so what makes me think I can relate to the One Who created time?! Though I can't relate to Him, I can get to know Him (at least somewhat; the only way I could know everything about God is if I was God and I certainly am not!). I do this like I would with anyone else I want to get to know: by taking time out of my day to spend with them. In the case of my relationship with God that means reading the Scriptures and praying. I consider God a person because of the various verses in the Bible that personify Him (i.e. "lover of my soul," "Heavenly Father," "King of kings," etc.), though I also believe that because He is God He should be given awe and a great deal more respect than I would give to a human.

I don't have time to type anymore, but I hope that helps.

laundrygirl
Jan 13th 2009, 01:08 AM
No one here (including unkerns) is making the claim that Catholicism is entirely false. As I previously pointed out, however, unkerns does have issue with teachings specific to the Catholic church and how those teachings relate to the Bible (and conflict with the Bible). Please do not misconstrue what unkerns has said. It's unkind, unfair, and you're only attacking a straw man. I'm certain unkerns is not appreciative of this sort of thing, neither am I.

Now you've made this claim that a church with apostolic authority is required in order to correctly interpret Scripture and you've provided us with two scriptures which I'm assuming you believe substantiate your view. We find these two scriptures posted below. I hope you don't mind, I prefer the New American Standard Version.

Let me quote 2 Peter 1:20:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

Now allow me to quote Acts 8:30-31:

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Lets discuss 2 Peter 1:20 (for no other reason than you've listed it first). You're actually guilty of taking this verse out of context (you know the saying, "a text without a context is a pretext"). On it's own this verse does appear to be teaching exactly what you're claiming. However, when you look at the verse within its larger context - proceeding and preceding verses, chapters and finally the book and entire Bible - you begin to see (or should begin to see) that Peter isn't saying quite what you're suggesting.

Lets quote a larger section of scripture; 2 Peter 1:16-21:

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

You'll have to excuse me, I hate artificial divisors (verse separations, in this instance).

Now when reading this entire section of scripture it occurs to me and should occur to anyone else (and this will be agreed upon by a great many people), that Peter is referring to the origin of scripture (which starts v.21 with the words "for no prophecy..."), rather than the interpretation of scripture. Essentially, scripture interprets scripture; don't take things out of context; don't do what Laundrygirl has just done. It would be ridiculous for Peter to be claiming what you're claiming in this thread. Do you realize how nonsensical it is for Peter to have meant what you're saying he meant?

Coming to Acts 8:30-31 (You have to read Acts 8:25-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:25-40;&version=49;)) we have exactly the same issue. You've created a theology based on two verses which have been taken out of context. The bigger issue now is that Acts 8, which was predicated upon 2 Peter, has lost its foundation as 2 Peter was incorrectly interpreted by you (and / or the Catholic church). Now it should quickly be said that neither of these verses make the explicitly or implicit claim that, "Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors". This is something either you or someone else has read into the text, a practice known as eisegetics.



The eunuch in Acts asked the question before He confessed Christ, did it occur to you that he knew nothing of Jewish scripture? The fact that Philip was there was God's providence, not God's affirmation of your claim which has been read into the text that, "one needs an apostle or a descendant of an apostle to interpret scripture". Philip knew scripture the eunuch did not; of course Philip is going to have to explain what Isaiah has written.



I'll answer these for myself; yes, I've read these Christian authors and many more. I'm studying exegetical theology (as well as having my hand in analytical philosophy). I've been studying these fields for over a decade now (I know, I'm still young and starting out). How about you? Perhaps you would make for an interesting debate?

The fact you say it is false at all implies that you rely on something other than the Church to know what is good or bad and what can bring you closer to God; the point is not that you believe the Church entirely good or bad, but rather that your authority for knowing good or evil is not that which is based on the divine but yourself, as far as I know. I am wondering what you consider to be an authority in knowing good or evil and how you know with certainty something is good or evil. Forgive me if I have come across as uncharitable and unkind as that is not my intent, but you ought to know that there is no ill will on my part, but as your Christian sister I desire the good of all people here.

I agree Peter does say that the origin of Scripture is divine and not human in what you have quoted. However, it is wiser if you looked into the whole of the book as well as how the whole of the book fits in practice with the whole of Scripture.

The whole of the book, in summary, is Peter warning the Christians under his care that there are false teachers, and to hold fast against their teaching to the one he and the other apostles imparted to them. He also reminds them of judgment and the day of wrath. In fact, in this book he tells them to be careful as it is possible to lose salvation (2 Peter 2:20). He makes mention of the authority of the apostles in 2 Peter 3:2 (that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles). [emphasis added] This is also consistent with what I said in Acts 8:30-31 and the story of the eunuch in them. I'll speak more of the passage from Acts that I quoted later.

Also, another thing Peter says in 2 Peter 3:15-17:

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability."

There are some things hard to understand and interpret, and those who are ignorant can twist them in the wrong direction. Hence the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ, have this authority, as displayed in Acts and the letters of Paul. Peter himself in the book says the account they give is not their own, but God's; therefore, they have authority to teach, not an ignorant layman who has a certain opinion about the passage but no real knowledge of it and the circumstances surrounding it. The apostle Paul in his epistles tells the Christians to trust in this authority that God gave him and the other apostles, and he admits the church is founded on the prophets and apostles. I don't have verses right now but I would be willing to provide them at some point in the future.

Now about the story of the eunuch; the full account is found in Acts 8:26-39. The eunuch was reading the scriptures, but they did not interpret themselves to him, though he sought understanding. He had to appeal to Phillip, who was sent to him by "an angel of the Lord". The eunuch was reading the prophesy of Isaiah. Of course he was ignorant; the Scriptures had not been interpreted to him. Therefore Philip "opened his mouth" and revealed the meaning of Scripture to him, but it wasn't his own ideas or opinions, but the Truth revealed by Christ himself; he was speaking with authority. Christ gave His authority to the apostles when they are speaking in matters of faith; they have sound doctrine. Hence the apostles' insistence that Christians heed their words. Yet we too can be like the eunuch and there are parts in Scripture we do not understand. If we have no authority to turn to, Scriptures will remain unopened.

Furthermore it is more consistent with our Jewish heritage that we have sacred Tradition; the Jews appealed to the Law and the Prophets, and then we appeal not only to that but to the Gospel preached by the Apostles, such as Peter said that it is imperative we do. Christianity is a fulfillment of the law, not a banishment of it.

I would like to speak further on this but at some other time, as well as attempt to refute the claims made by others on this topic that Catholicism has doctrines that are unbiblical. Doctrines such as papal infallibility, Marian dogmas, the saints are not unbiblical.

As for the early church fathers, I am not well enough versed to be able to debate about them; when I am better versed with them, I would be more than happy to have a debate about them. I have read excerpts of them and the lack of knowledge that I have can be easily remedied.

In the meantime I would also like to say that I find it shameful that some of you decided to attack catholicdude simply because his forum name has "catholic" in the title. I can't know your hearts, but it seemed as such to me when I first read this post and I have to say that if any of you have asked him questions with that purpose, then I have to say shame to you for not living up to the great title given to you: Christian. It's even worse because on this forum it's against the forum rules for him to defend himself, and any defense he may make on behalf of the Church is most likely going to be censored and he will be punished for it, making your efforts especially mean-spirited and unChristian as you corner him and then if he tries to argue against you he'll be punished.

Athanasius
Jan 13th 2009, 04:04 AM
The fact you say it is false at all implies that you rely on something other than the Church to know what is good or bad and what can bring you closer to God; the point is not that you believe the Church entirely good or bad, but rather that your authority for knowing good or evil is not that which is based on the divine but yourself, as far as I know. I am wondering what you consider to be an authority in knowing good or evil and how you know with certainty something is good or evil. Forgive me if I have come across as uncharitable and unkind as that is not my intent, but you ought to know that there is no ill will on my part, but as your Christian sister I desire the good of all people here.

I'm sitting here scratching my head, to be perfectly truthful with you. I simply don't understand at all how you've come to such an absurd conclusion. You're presenting me with a false dilemma (fallacy). Either I accept the entirety of the (implied Catholic) church - incorrect teachings and all. If I don't then I am some how relying on something other than "the Church" to know what is good, bad and what brings me closer to God. What can I say? This is extreme intellectual dishonesty and a complete disconnect. It would be as if someone in the course of this discussion were to say, "I don't believe in the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura" and that person being met with, "this implies you don't believe Jesus is God". Ridiculous.



I agree Peter does say that the origin of Scripture is divine and not human in what you have quoted. However, it is wiser if you looked into the whole of the book as well as how the whole of the book fits in practice with the whole of Scripture.

It would seem you agree with me? Off to a rough start; creating a false dilemma and repeating back to me what I said and then telling me I would be wiser if I followed my own advice:hmm:



Lets discuss 2 Peter 1:20 (for no other reason than you've listed it first). You're actually guilty of taking this verse out of context (you know the saying, "a text without a context is a pretext"). On it's own this verse does appear to be teaching exactly what you're claiming. However, when you look at the verse within its larger context - proceeding and preceding verses, chapters and finally the book and entire Bible - you begin to see (or should begin to see) that Peter isn't saying quite what you're suggesting.



The whole of the book, in summary, is Peter warning the Christians under his care that there are false teachers, and to hold fast against their teaching to the one he and the other apostles imparted to them. He also reminds them of judgment and the day of wrath. In fact, in this book he tells them to be careful as it is possible to lose salvation (2 Peter 2:20). He makes mention of the authority of the apostles in 2 Peter 3:2 (that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles). [emphasis added] This is also consistent with what I said in Acts 8:30-31 and the story of the eunuch in them. I'll speak more of the passage from Acts that I quoted later.

This is known as the ad hoc rescue fallacy. You can't use 2 Peter 1:20 so you resort to using 2 Peter 3:2: "Okay, so 2 Peter 1:20 might be saying something else but it still says what I'm claiming in 2 Peter 3:2".

Here is your original claim:


You need a Church with apostolic authority in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Only apostles are given the authority to interpret Scripture, and their successors. Otherwise, you are one who values your own opinions before the Truth; you are allowed to make Christianity whatever you please and you enslave God to your own whims.

If we examine 2 Peter 3:2 then we see, quite blatantly, that this verse does not teach that only Apostles and their successors are given the authority to interpret scripture. Again, even though you're claiming to have read the book within it's proper context, you've not done so. 2 Peter 3:2 is one verse in a collection of verses concerning the coming of the Lord and mockery on the part of unbelieving peoples.

2 Peter 3:1-9
1This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,

2that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.

3Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,

4and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

6through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Verse 2, "remember the words spoken..." does not equate to, "only the holy prophets and apostles are able to interpret scripture". What it is saying, however, is to remember God isn't slow in His promises (verse 9), and to remember the words spoken by the holy prophets and apostles even when they (or you, or them) are being mocked.



Also, another thing Peter says in 2 Peter 3:15-17:

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability."

There are some things hard to understand and interpret, and those who are ignorant can twist them in the wrong direction. Hence the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ, have this authority, as displayed in Acts and the letters of Paul. Peter himself in the book says the account they give is not their own, but God's; therefore, they have authority to teach, not an ignorant layman who has a certain opinion about the passage but no real knowledge of it and the circumstances surrounding it. The apostle Paul in his epistles tells the Christians to trust in this authority that God gave him and the other apostles, and he admits the church is founded on the prophets and apostles. I don't have verses right now but I would be willing to provide them at some point in the future.

I agree; Paul wrote some very hard to understand things - the man was an intellectual. With that said, however, as with 1 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:2, there is nothing in these verses (2 Peter 3:15-17) demonstrating your claim (even in conjunction with other scripture). So far your inferrence is invalid.



Now about the story of the eunuch; the full account is found in Acts 8:26-39. The eunuch was reading the scriptures, but they did not interpret themselves to him, though he sought understanding. He had to appeal to Phillip, who was sent to him by "an angel of the Lord". The eunuch was reading the prophesy of Isaiah. Of course he was ignorant; the Scriptures had not been interpreted to him. Therefore Philip "opened his mouth" and revealed the meaning of Scripture to him, but it wasn't his own ideas or opinions, but the Truth revealed by Christ himself; he was speaking with authority. Christ gave His authority to the apostles when they are speaking in matters of faith; they have sound doctrine. Hence the apostles' insistence that Christians heed their words. Yet we too can be like the eunuch and there are parts in Scripture we do not understand. If we have no authority to turn to, Scriptures will remain unopened.

Again, this does not prove your claim.



Furthermore it is more consistent with our Jewish heritage that we have sacred Tradition; the Jews appealed to the Law and the Prophets, and then we appeal not only to that but to the Gospel preached by the Apostles, such as Peter said that it is imperative we do. Christianity is a fulfillment of the law, not a banishment of it.

Once again, not pertinent to your claim.



I would like to speak further on this but at some other time, as well as attempt to refute the claims made by others on this topic that Catholicism has doctrines that are unbiblical. Doctrines such as papal infallibility, Marian dogmas, the saints are not unbiblical.

You're going to entertain a discussion between a group who can't interpret Scripture correctly (according to you) and yourself, who can interpret scripture correctly (according to you)? I don't see the point in even moving beyond the issue of interpretation?



As for the early church fathers, I am not well enough versed to be able to debate about them; when I am better versed with them, I would be more than happy to have a debate about them. I have read excerpts of them and the lack of knowledge that I have can be easily remedied.

Who said I wanted to debate them?



In the meantime I would also like to say that I find it shameful that some of you decided to attack catholicdude simply because his forum name has "catholic" in the title. I can't know your hearts, but it seemed as such to me when I first read this post and I have to say that if any of you have asked him questions with that purpose, then I have to say shame to you for not living up to the great title given to you: Christian. It's even worse because on this forum it's against the forum rules for him to defend himself, and any defense he may make on behalf of the Church is most likely going to be censored and he will be punished for it, making your efforts especially mean-spirited and unChristian as you corner him and then if he tries to argue against you he'll be punished.

Some advice; get off your self righteous horse. None of us have done what you're accusing us of.

Amos_with_goats
Jan 13th 2009, 04:24 AM
hristians can attend an RC church just as a Christian can be in a supermarket

FWIW,

The 'supermarket' comment is not really accurate with the RCC. You have to be active to practice, you can not simply 'show up'. In order to be a practicing RCC, you must attend mass.

In order to attend mass (and receive communion) you must say your confession to the priest.

The priest hears your confession and assigns your acts of contrition (prayers you say to atone for your sin). Most of the time, the prayers will include prayers to Mary.

The nature of the process makes it nealry impossible for someone to be an active RC without being directly involved.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 13th 2009, 08:12 AM
In the meantime I would also like to say that I find it shameful that some of you decided to attack catholicdude simply because his forum name has "catholic" in the title. I can't know your hearts, but it seemed as such to me when I first read this post and I have to say that if any of you have asked him questions with that purpose, then I have to say shame to you for not living up to the great title given to you: Christian. It's even worse because on this forum it's against the forum rules for him to defend himself, and any defense he may make on behalf of the Church is most likely going to be censored and he will be punished for it, making your efforts especially mean-spirited and unChristian as you corner him and then if he tries to argue against you he'll be punished.

Somewhat untruthful and across the line. Come on now, ever heard of the scripture "don't judge unless you be judged yourself", if not, now is a better time than any to start applying it.

If we can't all have a 'real discussion' without accusations being thrown left and right then maybe we should stick to posts with the title 'I've just been dumped' or the like.

So let's calm down and continue this discussion about interpretting the scriptures.

What I have to say on the matter:

-Everyone with the gift of the Holy Spirit (aka: every born again believer) has the ability to interpret scriptures. It is the Holy Spirit that allows us to understand the teachings and apply them to our lives.

- In regard to apostles. While they are not the only ones who can interpret scripture, what they say should not be questioned, because they were put in their position by God. Read numbers 9 if you want scriptural evidence of this. Or Hebrews 13:17 (I think- I'll check it later).

If apostles were the only ones who could understand scripture, Bible reading would be a bit of a pointless exercise don't you think? Food for thought.

God Bless

Romber
Jan 13th 2009, 11:37 AM
I don't won't to interrupt what is going on here, but catholicdude never answered my question yet, and that is what the thread is for


Coming back to this thread, I do have a question (if you are still around)

At another forum the inevitable Gay Marriage debate came up, only in the disguise of California passing Proposition 8 (banning of gay marriage). The entire debate was going well until a Catholic came in and said that Gay marriage is technically ok in Catholicism, but the actual 'homosexual sex' was not ok. Thus Catholicism looks down on Gay marriage as bad only because it promotes 'homosexual sex'-which is the only sin pertaining to Gay people.

From all that, this is what I understood:

Homosexuality is not a sin
The only true sin is homosexual sex (with context)
It is technically ok to be a homosexual that is married, as long as you don't have sex

Note-The person could not provide any scripture to back up his claims.

So, I guess a little clarity on the Catholic Church's position would be great, and their reasonings (ie. Scriptural proof) of such a belief.

Revinius
Jan 13th 2009, 02:42 PM
FWIW,

The 'supermarket' comment is not really accurate with the RCC. You have to be active to practice, you can not simply 'show up'. In order to be a practicing RCC, you must attend mass.

In order to attend mass (and receive communion) you must say your confession to the priest.

The priest hears your confession and assigns your acts of contrition (prayers you say to atone for your sin). Most of the time, the prayers will include prayers to Mary.

The nature of the process makes it nealry impossible for someone to be an active RC without being directly involved.

You miss my meaning. I desired to highlight that it is not the building you enter every sunday that makes you a Christian; simply because Christians go to a particular 'church' does not necessarily make it a place where right doctrine is preached.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 13th 2009, 03:45 PM
You miss my meaning. I desired to highlight that it is not the building you enter every sunday that makes you a Christian; simply because Christians go to a particular 'church' does not necessarily make it a place where right doctrine is preached.

True, but people go to church in order to spend time with God and other believers. People go to a supermarket in order to buy goods. The intention and motivation is different, and that, I believe, makes all the difference.

Sandusky
Jan 13th 2009, 11:54 PM
I'm sitting here scratching my head, to be perfectly truthful with you. I simply don't understand at all how you've come to such an absurd conclusion. You're presenting me with a false dilemma (fallacy). Either I accept the entirety of the (implied Catholic) church - incorrect teachings and all. If I don't then I am some how relying on something other than "the Church" to know what is good, bad and what brings me closer to God. What can I say? This is extreme intellectual dishonesty and a complete disconnect. It would be as if someone in the course of this discussion were to say, "I don't believe in the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura" and that person being met with, "this implies you don't believe Jesus is God". Ridiculous.

Now I'm the one scratching my head lol. Where's the false dilemma, Xel'Naga? Laundrygirl is defending the Catholic Church from attack, remember. If she didn't believe that the Church is infallible in teachings on faith and morals then she wouldn't even be replying. Y'all are coming at this from completely different directions, that's all.

In fact it's a relatively recent invention that Christ did not protect the intstitutional Church from error. It's unfair to come at her as if her views are ridiculous when her position is actually the more technically orthodox one.



You're going to entertain a discussion between a group who can't interpret Scripture correctly (according to you) and yourself, who can interpret scripture correctly (according to you)? I don't see the point in even moving beyond the issue of interpretation?

Except that what she's posting is not her own opinion- it's teaching of the Church, for good or bad. Meanwhile the views of independent, individual Christians on this board are --indisputably-- personal opinion. Again, for good or bad.

just my 2 cents. ;)

Athanasius
Jan 14th 2009, 12:17 AM
Now I'm the one scratching my head lol. Where's the false dilemma, Xel'Naga? Laundrygirl is defending the Catholic Church from attack, remember. If she didn't believe that the Church is infallible in teachings on faith and morals then she wouldn't even be replying. Y'all are coming at this from completely different directions, that's all.

As I explained, her assertion that if I don't believe in some of the teachings of the Catholic church then I've undermind any basis for differentiating between what is good and evil and what brings me closer to God (hence the false dilemma). Have I challenged the Catholic churchs teachings on morality or faith? Absolutely not; she's assuming.



In fact it's a relatively recent invention that Christ did not protect the intstitutional Church from error. It's unfair to come at her as if her views are ridiculous when her position is actually the more technically orthodox one.

She's drawing a false conclusion from what's being said, that's all.



Except that what she's posting is not her own opinion- it's teaching of the Church, for good or bad. Meanwhile the views of independent, individual Christians on this board are --indisputably-- personal opinion. Again, for good or bad.

just my 2 cents. ;)

Which only concurs with what I've said; why bother?

Followtheway
Jan 14th 2009, 02:43 AM
I find the most interesting thing about this whole conversation is that the teachings in the Gospels were written mostly by the apostles, but the apostles in their day were considered the lowest of low. They were Gallileans and when Jesus found most of them they were taking up their fathers trade which for the Jews meant you werent good enough. Jesus decided they would make the best disciples and the Gospels give an account of Jesus's teachings not their own.

The bible also tells us that we are all called to be a holy priesthood, Catholicism is a european religion, and Christianity comes from the east. The Pharisees themselves knew the whole OT memorized yet they had it wrong, and that is because they did not realize that the law wasnt what was important, but the people. They wouldnt even help someone in need because it was the sabbath!! Only the Lord himself ordains not man. Just like some of us have been ordained. The Pope is a result of the same love of laws over people and they use even more man made laws. Jesus said the only true religion was to help the orphans and widows and have spotless faith. American Christianity as we know it has been made out to be a joke. We are strangers to this world we were meant to pitch tents not build cathedrals.

Revinius
Jan 14th 2009, 03:13 AM
True, but people go to church in order to spend time with God and other believers. People go to a supermarket in order to buy goods. The intention and motivation is different, and that, I believe, makes all the difference.

I know of multitudes who attend church for many reasons above God. You can throw up as many distinctions as you wish but for the purposes of salvation it matters little which building you walk into. What matters from a Churchian point of view is whether they are actually saving people, and whether they have a right view of God (doctrine). Thus my point that, an RC 'church' can contain as many Christians as it desires, but if at the core their doctrine is fatally flawed they are no better than anywhere else in the world which has similar man-made views of God.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 14th 2009, 09:05 AM
Ok, that makes sense. I agree with you in terms of the building. But a church isn't actually a building, but a group of Christians. So the question really is "Is the RC church in fact a church (group of Christians) or not?"

I would answer 'partly but not fully' however if your view is different please say

Revinius
Jan 14th 2009, 11:25 PM
Ok, that makes sense. I agree with you in terms of the building. But a church isn't actually a building, but a group of Christians. So the question really is "Is the RC church in fact a church (group of Christians) or not?"

I would answer 'partly but not fully' however if your view is different please say

I would answer that unless they are serving the real and genuine Christ (not the Christ we might like to think of) then they don't really qualify under the NT definition of church. My point being that just cos there are Christians who happen to go there doesnt automatically qualify them as 'church'. Christians do go to supermarkets etc as well and they wouldnt really be considered 'church'. I guess in the end what it comes down to is whether Christians are meeting for the real deal and not some made up Christ.

one_lost_coin
Jan 15th 2009, 07:13 PM
I know of multitudes who attend church for many reasons above God. You can throw up as many distinctions as you wish but for the purposes of salvation it matters little which building you walk into. What matters from a Churchian point of view is whether they are actually saving people, and whether they have a right view of God (doctrine). Thus my point that, an RC 'church' can contain as many Christians as it desires, but if at the core their doctrine is fatally flawed they are no better than anywhere else in the world which has similar man-made views of God.

I would think the building you walk in and stay in could be a matter of life in death. I have done some evangelism outside stripclubs and have been surprised by how many christians will walk in because they prayed a prayer once and apparently they were told the were saved no matter how they lived the rest of their lives, no life change neccesary. Now that was one building they walked into that did them an incredible disservice. (Their lives aren't over and there is still hope for them I know you all will join me in praying for their souls).

Jesus tells his apostles that He will send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and that He will be with them till the end of the age.

I believe Jesus if He says He is going to do something then I have to believe He is going to do just that. Jesus gave us a Church to be a pillar and foundation of truth so that we would know how to conduct ourselves in the house of God. To lead us to transform our lives into what is pleasing to Him.

I trust Jesus and I trust in Him to protect His Church from error especially on matters of faith and moral teaching.

Revinius
Jan 16th 2009, 02:10 AM
I would think the building you walk in and stay in could be a matter of life in death. I have done some evangelism outside stripclubs and have been surprised by how many christians will walk in because they prayed a prayer once and apparently they were told the were saved no matter how they lived the rest of their lives, no life change neccesary. Now that was one building they walked into that did them an incredible disservice. (Their lives aren't over and there is still hope for them I know you all will join me in praying for their souls).

Jesus tells his apostles that He will send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and that He will be with them till the end of the age.

I believe Jesus if He says He is going to do something then I have to believe He is going to do just that. Jesus gave us a Church to be a pillar and foundation of truth so that we would know how to conduct ourselves in the house of God. To lead us to transform our lives into what is pleasing to Him.

I trust Jesus and I trust in Him to protect His Church from error especially on matters of faith and moral teaching.

Indeed, but there are two edges of sovereignty and responsibility in Jesus' teachings. We have to be responsible and discerning in how we live and in how we meet as we are accountable under Him. To live a life not constantly striving for the truth that lies only in Him is a life that reflects that perhaps you are not as elected as you might have thought you were when you prayed a random prayer at a cool church or camp X years ago. The 'way of the cross' is an entire change that goes transcends the basic 'two ways to live' evangelism, it is an entire life transformation in Him. So, to get to the point, we must be discerning (pray for it!) in who we meet with and who we call brother and make sure that whatever we do we do it for the glory of the one who is our everything (otherwise it is a worthless and glory thieving action). It doesnt matter who calls themselves 'church' but that they exist for the glory of a real and not made up Jesus who calls us to a real mission and a right worship of Him.

catholicdude
Jan 20th 2009, 11:00 PM
I don't won't to interrupt what is going on here, but catholicdude never answered my question yet, and that is what the thread is for

Ok, I'm sorry, I'll cover that right now. You can find the Catholic position on homosexuality in detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, here's a link to the "H" part of the index:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/h.htm

just scroll down to "Homosexuality and click the first link.

I'll paraphrase here for convience: Homosexuality, of course, refers to someone being sexually attracted to a human of the same sex. Being homosexual is, initself, not evil. I mean, some (probably most) people can't help if they're homosexual. The cause of homosexuality is, as of now, unknown. But, and it's a big but, Church tradition teaches that homosexual sex/acts are intrinsically disordered and go against natural law. Scripture states that homosexual sex is against God:

Genisis 19:1-29 (very long so I won't post it)

Romans 1:24-27 "24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error."

1 Corinthians 6:10 "10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:10 "10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine"

Under no circumstances are these acts approved. It also says that we should accept homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. The CCC states that all homosexuals are called to chastity. It doesn't say anything about marriage here, mayabe somewhere else. I'll get back to you about it. I've always understood that the Church is against it, considering sex in marriage is allowed and homosexual sex is not allowed. That's just my take. So yes, being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. Sorry for kind of skipping over your question.
P.P.S. I'm still having troubles with this computer, hopefully I'll be able to reply to more posts this weekend. I have a lot of reading to do.

Sandusky
Jan 21st 2009, 02:32 PM
Coming back to this thread, I do have a question (if you are still around)

At another forum the inevitable Gay Marriage debate came up, only in the disguise of California passing Proposition 8 (banning of gay marriage). The entire debate was going well until a Catholic came in and said that Gay marriage is technically ok in Catholicism, but the actual 'homosexual sex' was not ok. Thus Catholicism looks down on Gay marriage as bad only because it promotes 'homosexual sex'-which is the only sin pertaining to Gay people.

From all that, this is what I understood:

Homosexuality is not a sin
The only true sin is homosexual sex (with context)
It is technically ok to be a homosexual that is married, as long as you don't have sex
Note-The person could not provide any scripture to back up his claims.

So, I guess a little clarity on the Catholic Church's position would be great, and their reasonings (ie. Scriptural proof) of such a belief.


Romber- You may already understand this, and if so please forgive me for being redundant. But for the sake of other people who may be reading who don't understand, there is an important distinction that needs to be made here.

Individual Catholics are not the same as the Catholic Church. For example...as I've said before, I have a big Catholic family and while most of them are orthodox, there are a few that have some questionable views. Any random Catholic can believe that birth control is ok, or women should be ordained priests, or God only hears our prayers if they're in Latin, etc., etc. People are allowed their personal opinions.

But it's what the Catholic Church believes that is what's important. These fundamental teachings on faith and morals are what people are talking about when they say that the Church is infallible.

As to your question re: the guy you were debating about Prop 8...I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say that he's confused about the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Being homosexual- that is, having an innate inclination toward someone of the same sex- is disordered but is not in itself sinful. It's the actions that are sinful- ie: willfully entertaining these thoughts and fantasies and of course acting on them in any way.

People who have Same Sex Attraction Disorder have a heavy cross to bear, but if they surrender themselves to God's will and strive to control their thoughts and emotions, if they commit themselves to modesty, chastity and temperance, then there's no reason that a person with this affliction can't become a saint. Any time there's a cross to bear, there's an opportunity for great holiness.

Gay marriage being "technically ok" in Catholicism is obviously nonsense. There's no such thing as gay marriage anyway. Maybe that's what he was confused about?

Anyhow, hope this clears things up. :)

Followtheway
Jan 21st 2009, 04:00 PM
The Church is each and every individual, thats why we are considered the body of Christ. The Church never was a building or a religion.

Revinius
Jan 21st 2009, 11:36 PM
The Church is each and every individual, thats why we are considered the body of Christ. The Church never was a building or a religion.

Well, it's every individual in communion with each other individual.

Sandusky
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:13 PM
The Church is each and every individual, thats why we are considered the body of Christ.

Yes, this is correct.


The Church never was a building or a religion.

Hm, where do you get this idea? You say this almost like it's a logical conclusion from your first statement, but it's not. It's not either/or...the Church is individuals who make up the Body of Christ AND it's a religion. Why is the Acts of the Apostles so full of churches? What exactly was St. Paul addressing in his letters if not organized churches...?

kingscorp
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:27 PM
I'm abit confused and need advice.. According to what i read about unmarried/engaged couples living together. I know this is wrong in the eyes of God. My fiance and I are both Christians and never had sex in the 5years we been together in a relationship. We believe in keeping ourselves for when we get married but temptation has set in afew times. Im in the uk and she is south african. Ive got my own place and due to financial difficulties she has to come and stay by me. I've asked everywhere and many say this is wrong and sinful. My own father even said ill have to leave church for it is sin and won't look good towards the church if they should allow it. So where in the bible does it say that unmarried poeple shouldn't live together .. They all just give scriptures but still it contradicts what im seeking. But I mean God knows ones heart and not people. We mean only good of stayin together until we get married in 4 months time.. Can anyone give me advice please would be really helpful

Followtheway
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:16 PM
Hm, where do you get this idea? You say this almost like it's a logical conclusion from your first statement, but it's not. It's not either/or...the Church is individuals who make up the Body of Christ AND it's a religion. Why is the Acts of the Apostles so full of churches? What exactly was St. Paul addressing in his letters if not organized churches...?

We know that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and that there would rise a new one with him (aka the body of Christ) So, Paul is addressing individuals that live in certain areas, they would not have been allowed to be organized for if they were they would have been put to death almost immediately. One of the things Jesus did was address religion, we know this because the pharisees used it to press strongers laws on the people, one of the things he freed us from. We have already experience religion divide us (baptist, pentacostal, charismatic, etc.) this is also another thing Jesus came to destroy. The final statement I make is this: "pure religion is this, to help the orphans and the widows and have spottless faith" This was said to show that their religion of laws was unacceptable.


I'm abit confused and need advice.. According to what i read about unmarried/engaged couples living together. I know this is wrong in the eyes of God. My fiance and I are both Christians and never had sex in the 5years we been together in a relationship. We believe in keeping ourselves for when we get married but temptation has set in afew times. Im in the uk and she is south african. Ive got my own place and due to financial difficulties she has to come and stay by me. I've asked everywhere and many say this is wrong and sinful. My own father even said ill have to leave church for it is sin and won't look good towards the church if they should allow it. So where in the bible does it say that unmarried poeple shouldn't live together .. They all just give scriptures but still it contradicts what im seeking. But I mean God knows ones heart and not people. We mean only good of stayin together until we get married in 4 months time.. Can anyone give me advice please would be really helpful

There are somethings in our life that are obvious things, it wouldnt be generally addressed in the bible because during their time they would only be living together if they were married. We know that the divorce rate for couples that live together first, goes from 54% to 66%, There is also the passage in the bible that goes "all things are permissable, but not all things are beneficial"

Cara Lott
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:27 AM
I'm abit confused and need advice.. According to what i read about unmarried/engaged couples living together. I know this is wrong in the eyes of God. My fiance and I are both Christians and never had sex in the 5years we been together in a relationship. We believe in keeping ourselves for when we get married but temptation has set in afew times. Im in the uk and she is south african. Ive got my own place and due to financial difficulties she has to come and stay by me. I've asked everywhere and many say this is wrong and sinful. My own father even said ill have to leave church for it is sin and won't look good towards the church if they should allow it. So where in the bible does it say that unmarried poeple shouldn't live together .. They all just give scriptures but still it contradicts what im seeking. But I mean God knows ones heart and not people. We mean only good of stayin together until we get married in 4 months time.. Can anyone give me advice please would be really helpful
If you two have been tempted a few times, doesn't that kind of tell you that it's wrong? Temptation in and of itself isn't wrong, but why would you want to set yourself up to fall?

catholicdude
Jan 24th 2009, 06:48 AM
Simply because it doesn't... You would need to pull in the surrounding verses to show what you're claiming this one verse shows. When you've failed to initially substantiate your "point" then there's not much more I need to say other than, "You've failed to show your point".

So again, that one verse simply doesn't say what you're claiming it says.

The verse is very self explanatory: "and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints" this is the Word of God we're dealing with here, it is completely true. Why one verse is not enough for you to prove a point is beyond me. The surrounding verses say nothing to disprove it, so, as far as reason goes, we have to assume that the saints in heaven offer up our prayers to Jesus. To say this is wrong is to go against simple reasoning.




You must have overlooked where I said:

the scripture I posted is quite clearly in regards only to God (don't make any images of God, not, "don't make any images"). For instance, don't create a gold calf, designate it the "god which brought us out of Egypt" and start worshiping it either as a calf (god itself) or as a representation of the God (YHWH) that did in fact bring you out of Egypt. So unless a church is making representations of God, I'm not all that concerned.

I don't think I did. You're still making the simple mistake of implying that the images or statues, whether as a representation of God or not, are being worshiped. I repeat: the images and statues are not being worshiped, they help focus our mind on whoever the image or statue is of. By doing this we can make a more wholesome and complete prayer. Once you finally understand that we are not worshiping these images/statues, you can truly see the Catholic point of view. No where in Scripture does it speak against using images/statues as tools to focus ones' self to pray more completely.




I was referring to the "Saints" as the Catholic church has designated them, not the "Saints" as referred to in scripture; I don't believe they are the same people.

How do you see them as different, please explain, if it's not too much trouble.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. I just wanted to let you know that while it might seem like I'm only here to spread Catholic doctrine, I do truly enjoy having these conversations with you guys. I like hearing opposing opinions and defending my own. So, I would just like to thank all of you for giving me the "real discussion" I wanted. :D

catholicdude
Jan 24th 2009, 07:41 AM
You answered your own question: GOD instructs them to create these things, everything else that MAN created was considered idols. The Lord even had the serpent staff destroyed 2 Kings 18:3-5

I'm sorry, I've forgotten my own question and couldn't seem to find the one you were responding to, if you could refresh my memory, I'd be very thankful.


He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.

I'm sorry again, I've forgotten what you're talking about, it's been awhile since I've been here (computer broke down). But, just to let you know, just because you burn incense does not you're worshiping something. The Catholic Church uses incense to symbolize our prayers going up to God.

Rev. 8:3-4

"3 And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. 4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel."

Incense was used at the altar before God. This verse shows that our prayers are offered up to God by the means of incense. The Church uses incense at the altar for the same reasons.


As for Revelation not only is that book impossible for us to interpret, but in no way points to praying to the saints.

Just because the book is hard to understand doesn't mean it's impossible to interpret, it just means that it needs closer inspection. This is a trivial matter to me considering I have the Church to guide me in interpretation. The Church has most completely understood the book of Revelation since it was written. Plus, it's not like we can't get bits and pieces out of it. We may not completely understand it, but we do get some of it.


As for the scripture about talking to the dead: remember when Saul consulted a medium and talked to Elijah? Do you remember hoe mad Elijah was? Its in the book, dont consult with the dead.

This is still like a fortune telling type of thing. The Catholic Church teaches these things to be sinful. When we pray to saints, it's not like we're summoning them by means of a ouija board, not at all. We just ask them to pray to God for us.


Also when I was catholic I prayed the holy Mary's, the belief is that you wont have pain in your death by doing so (for some reason people think she has that power). Just like the scapular which catholics believe will save you even from the worst of sins just by wearing, I dont believe in worshipping the dove or crosses either, they are images as well That isnt even the cross that Jesus was crucified, the type they used for his crucifixion was in the shape of a T it was the only thing functional during that time.

Your knowledge of the scapular is lacking, and that's an understatement. The scapular was given to St. Simon Stock in the 1200s (I think it was the 1200s) by Our Lady. The promise was to free the person from purgatory. The scapular cannot save you from hell, if you're going there, you're going there and there's nothing anyone can do about it except God. Even the release from purgatory is only done under certain conditions. 1) that you are wearing the scapular as you die, 2) that you are chast according to your state of life, and 3) and you must pray the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary daily, the Rosary will also suffice. On top of all that, you must be enrolled in the confraternity by permission of a priest. Before you go around making claims about what Catholics believe, you should get correct information. I don't know about what you said about our belief of the Hail Mary making a painless death, but judging by how much research you've done, I'm not going to take your word for it. There is no difference in functionality between a T and a cross. A cross is like a lower case t, not affecting the peoples ability to nail Jesus' hands and feet to the proper places.



It is true that you dont have to pray to Mary, but it is catholic doctrine that she is the queen of heaven, which the bible does not support and before you bring up Revelation, the stars can represent the angels of the churchs and much more and again it is Revelation and cannot be fully translated.

Also most catholic sanctuaries have statues of her all around, sometimes she holds a baby Jesus, and thats about it for their statues unless they got a couple of saints around, or how about the massive marches with her statue done around the world, and in most catholic paintings Mary is usually in front and Jesus in back or of course as a baby.

Now as for the scripture about Jeremiah that was not brought up about Mary, but just as an instance in history.

Oh and im not protestant, I dont do religion

I don't have time to get to this morning, maybe tonight. But I will ask, why are you against Jesus being portayed as a baby? That is the Incarnation, the most important moment in human history, I think you'll at least admit to that. Sorry if I assumed you were Protestant, I didn't mean to. What do you mean you don't do religion? You debate with me on here so you must be somewhat interested.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Jan 25th 2009, 07:12 AM
The verse is very self explanatory: "and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints" this is the Word of God we're dealing with here, it is completely true. Why one verse is not enough for you to prove a point is beyond me. The surrounding verses say nothing to disprove it, so, as far as reason goes, we have to assume that the saints in heaven offer up our prayers to Jesus. To say this is wrong is to go against simple reasoning.

You still haven't demonstrated to us that this verse teaches that the saints in heaven offer the prayers of the 'saints' on earth (as opposed to these prayers being authored in heaven by saints in heaven). Nor does this verse teach that it is permissible to pray to the dead for intercession.

Why is one verse not enough to prove a point to me? I'll tell you why: you haven't proven a point and the verse in question is highly debatable. It's kind of like purgatory - one verse just doesn't do it for the entire doctrine (hence it's defeat).

You know why it's still wrong? Reasoning is too simple.



I don't think I did. You're still making the simple mistake of implying that the images or statues, whether as a representation of God or not, are being worshiped. I repeat: the images and statues are not being worshiped, they help focus our mind on whoever the image or statue is of. By doing this we can make a more wholesome and complete prayer. Once you finally understand that we are not worshiping these images/statues, you can truly see the Catholic point of view. No where in Scripture does it speak against using images/statues as tools to focus ones' self to pray more completely.

*slaps forehead... You're so focused on trying to get me (and the rest of us) to 'understand' the 'Catholic viewpoint' that you're missing what's plain as day: the statues aren't being worshiped, we agree (and have since my second or third post in this thread?).



How do you see them as different, please explain, if it's not too much trouble.

Well, what the Catholic church considers a saint may not be what God considers a saint. At least no one has been unfair and brought up the white and black magic(k) of the early church:hmm::P

catholicdude
Jan 25th 2009, 08:12 AM
*slaps forehead... You're so focused on trying to get me (and the rest of us) to 'understand' the 'Catholic viewpoint' that you're missing what's plain as day: the statues aren't being worshiped, we agree (and have since my second or third post in this thread?).

It seems as though you've forgotten the beginning of this whole conversation. Catholics were being accused of idolatry,which is, as we all know, the worship of physical objects as God. So, obviously, we don't agree. Perhaps you do, but unkerns doesn't.

So, you just don't believe using statues to help in prayer is necessary, and that's why you're against it?




Well, what the Catholic church considers a saint may not be what God considers a saint. At least no one has been unfair and brought up the white and black magic(k) of the early church:hmm::P

Is there some kind of distinction? You're not being very clear.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the whole "white and black magic(k)" thing you're talking about, care to enlighten me?

As for what you said about the Churches interpretation of Revelation, that requires a more lengthy response, which I'm not up for at the moment (It's two o'clock in the morning here). I'll get back to you soon!

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Jan 25th 2009, 04:54 PM
It seems as though you've forgotten the beginning of this whole conversation. Catholics were being accused of idolatry,which is, as we all know, the worship of physical objects as God. So, obviously, we don't agree. Perhaps you do, but unkerns doesn't.

So, you just don't believe using statues to help in prayer is necessary, and that's why you're against it?




It is different because the golden calf was actually being worshiped. We don't make idols out of statues because we do not worship a chunk of marble/plaster, we worship God alone. We pray to the person it represents, I can't stress that enough. We pray not to the statue, but to the person it represents.

Exodus 20:1-4
Then God spoke all these words, saying,"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.


It really doesn't matter that your comparisons don't hold as the scripture I posted is quite clearly in regards only to God (don't make any images of God, not, "don't make any images"). For instance, don't create a gold calf, designate it the "god which brought us out of Egypt" and start worshiping it either as a calf (god itself) or as a representation of the God (YHWH) that did in fact bring you out of Egypt. So unless a church is making representations of God, I'm not all that concerned.



Is there some kind of distinction? You're not being very clear.

The Catholic church isn't God? I don't know how much of a distinction you want? What men look for in saints may not be what God 'looks for' in saints? We pick the Sauls, God picks the Davids?



I have no idea what you're talking about with the whole "white and black magic(k)" thing you're talking about, care to enlighten me?

As for what you said about the Churches interpretation of Revelation, that requires a more lengthy response, which I'm not up for at the moment (It's two o'clock in the morning here). I'll get back to you soon!

I don't want to distract the discussion with discussions on magick. As for Revelation, I wouldn't spend the time on it... You're not going to be able to sufficiently show what you're claiming.

catholicdude
Jan 25th 2009, 05:47 PM
Exodus 20:1-4
Then God spoke all these words, saying,"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Exodus 20:1-5

"1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

He doesn't want likeness' made that are going to be adored and served as God. There are plenty of instances in scripture where likeness' of things in heaven and earth are made.

2 Chronicles 3:10

"10 He made also in the house of the holy of holies two cherubims of image work: and he overlaid them with gold."

Solomon created the likeness of angels in heaven, this seemingly contradicts God's first commandment, but does it? No. Because they are not being adored by God. Other instances include Ex. 25:15, Num. 21: 8-9, and 1 Chron. 28:18-19.


The Catholic church isn't God? I don't know how much of a distinction you want? What men look for in saints may not be what God 'looks for' in saints? We pick the Sauls, God picks the Davids?

Ok, I understand what you're saying now. So, you don't think God thinks that people that completely dedicate their lives to Him and to doing His will are saints? If that's not it, what is? What constitutes being a saint? I agree, the church is not God, but it knows when someone is completely dedicated to Him.


I don't want to distract the discussion with discussions on magick. As for Revelation, I wouldn't spend the time on it... You're not going to be able to sufficiently show what you're claiming.

Says you, but, even if I did sufficiently show what I'm claiming, you wouldn't believe me...

Pax,
Zach

Followtheway
Jan 25th 2009, 10:28 PM
Catholic dude - you missed verse 4: Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

This means nothing is to be made - the Cherubims were commanded by the Lord to be made, the snake staff was commanded by the Lord to be made. As soon as people began to worship it it was destroyed, in fact every statue or area was destroyed during that time. This even includes the high places. EVERYTHING. For instance people now worship crosses (crucifixes) instead of the one who hung on it, and its not even the right cross, the one he hung on was in the shape of a T. The cross is a death device and does not save the one who died on it does.

On the subject of Saints - The catholic church only recognizes them as a saint if they did 2 miracle while alive and one while dead. Most of those men are no different than I, but I am not considered saintly by the catholic church, but I am by the Lords word.

Xel'Naga did you tell him about the catholic church during the 70's, how they allowed pre-marital sex?

Athanasius
Jan 25th 2009, 11:43 PM
Exodus 20:1-5

"1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

He doesn't want likeness' made that are going to be adored and served as God. There are plenty of instances in scripture where likeness' of things in heaven and earth are made.

It's two fold:

1. Don't make images
2. Don't serve them or adore them



2 Chronicles 3:10

"[I]10 He made also in the house of the holy of holies two cherubims of image work: and he overlaid them with gold."

Solomon created the likeness of angels in heaven, this seemingly contradicts God's first commandment, but does it? No. Because they are not being adored by God. Other instances include Ex. 25:15, Num. 21: 8-9, and 1 Chron. 28:18-19.

God commanded the creation of the cherubims, we're commanded not to do such a thing. As I said previously. The Holy Spirit is depicted symbolically as a dove in the New Testament. That doesn't mean we can depict the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman.



Ok, I understand what you're saying now. So, you don't think God thinks that people that completely dedicate their lives to Him and to doing His will are saints? If that's not it, what is? What constitutes being a saint? I agree, the church is not God, but it knows when someone is completely dedicated to Him.

That's not at all what I said.



Says you, but, even if I did sufficiently show what I'm claiming, you wouldn't believe me...

Says you - There's very little I'm dogmatic about, if you could show it sufficiently I might just take it up.



Xel'Naga did you tell him about the catholic church during the 70's, how they allowed pre-marital sex?

Didn't think to bring it up.

one_lost_coin
Jan 28th 2009, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by Xel'Naga The Holy Spirit is depicted symbolically as a dove in the New Testament. That doesn't mean we can depict the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman.

I am confused if the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove in Scripture then what would be wrong with depicting the Holy Spirit as a Dove like in scripture?

one_lost_coin
Jan 28th 2009, 11:03 PM
This even includes the high places. EVERYTHING. For instance people now worship crosses (crucifixes) instead of the one who hung on it, and its not even the right cross, the one he hung on was in the shape of a T. The cross is a death device and does not save the one who died on it does.


Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Seeing a cross always reminds me of the one who hung on it died and resurrected for us. Such a simple symbol telling such a profound story the story of the salvation of man the depths of which we will spend the rest of our lives discovering in awestruck wonder. In the Cross I see the power of God.

Revinius
Jan 29th 2009, 01:18 PM
I am confused if the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove in Scripture then what would be wrong with depicting the Holy Spirit as a Dove like in scripture?

It's not wrong, but it's wrong to depict it as an asian woman (eg the Shack heresy).

one_lost_coin
Jan 29th 2009, 05:52 PM
It's not wrong, but it's wrong to depict it as an asian woman (eg the Shack heresy).


Oh I see why you a xel naga are using the asian woman thing. I thought is was a strange example but when I did a search for "shack heresy" as I have never heard of the book I now understand why you are talking about the asian woman.

Learn something new everyday.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 29th 2009, 09:38 PM
I think you can cut 'The Shack' a bit of slack, calling it a heresy is a bit unfair. It is after all fiction and does not really suggest that the Holy Spirit actually looks like an asian woman. (apart from anything else the Spirit isn't physical- hense the name). The book can still bring people to Christ, and it has and will continue to.

Athanasius
Jan 29th 2009, 10:11 PM
I think you can cut 'The Shack' a bit of slack, calling it a heresy is a bit unfair. It is after all fiction and does not really suggest that the Holy Spirit actually looks like an asian woman. (apart from anything else the Spirit isn't physical- hense the name). The book can still bring people to Christ, and it has and will continue to.

I wonder which Christ it's leading them to :rolleyes:
Fiction, non-Fiction; "leading people to Christ," it's still doing something it shouldn't... Giving God an image.

Revinius
Jan 30th 2009, 03:40 AM
I think you can cut 'The Shack' a bit of slack, calling it a heresy is a bit unfair. It is after all fiction and does not really suggest that the Holy Spirit actually looks like an asian woman. (apart from anything else the Spirit isn't physical- hense the name). The book can still bring people to Christ, and it has and will continue to.

I think there is a distinction between stuff we should be wary of but isnt a salvation issue and stuff that is a core doctrinal issue and is something God treat's very seriously that is a salvation issue. 'The Shack' is full of myriad gnostic heresies that the early church thought incredibly important to sort out. What can be more important than the nature of who and what God is?

Friend of Jesus
Jan 30th 2009, 08:17 AM
I think there is a distinction between stuff we should be wary of but isnt a salvation issue and stuff that is a core doctrinal issue and is something God treat's very seriously that is a salvation issue. 'The Shack' is full of myriad gnostic heresies that the early church thought incredibly important to sort out. What can be more important than the nature of who and what God is?

I know the Shack has a few issues, but at the heart it is still a Christian novel. We can't even pretend to know the full nature of God, we probably get it wrong more often than we get it right. I saw some things in the Shack that made me think 'hmm...' but I never denounced the whole book as antichrist propaganda.


I wonder which Christ it's leading them to :rolleyes:


If it results in people being filled with the Holy Spirit then it's the same Christ. If not, then the book is neither useful nor harmful to those that read it.

Followtheway
Jan 30th 2009, 03:19 PM
Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelónot with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Seeing a cross always reminds me of the one who hung on it died and resurrected for us. Such a simple symbol telling such a profound story the story of the salvation of man the depths of which we will spend the rest of our lives discovering in awestruck wonder. In the Cross I see the power of God.

Deuteronomy 4:15-17
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air,

What was done on the cross was utterly amazing, but it is not the death device that we show our devotion to, but the man who died on it.

one_lost_coin
Jan 30th 2009, 05:00 PM
It may be interesting to note how God is depicted in some Eastern Iconography.

God the Father is usualy not depicted but when He is it is as a Hand. For it was God's hand that revealed itself in Daniel when God wrote on the wall.

Jesus is depicted as Jesus a human because God reveals Himself in Jesus Christ who was truly man such that we (that is mankind) actually saw Him and spoke with Him and touched Him and ate with Him etc...

The Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove, as fire, as a cloud because He revealed Himself that way.

You can't get more biblical than that.

Athanasius
Jan 30th 2009, 07:57 PM
If it results in people being filled with the Holy Spirit then it's the same Christ. If not, then the book is neither useful nor harmful to those that read it.

On the contrary, quite harmful. If people are reading this book, aren't "filled with the Spirit" but end up following a Christ, then that is a very harmful thing. Work of fiction or not, this book is giving people direction, just as people followed the Da Vinci Code. Fiction isn't a license to disregard biblical mandates (I imagine if I wrote blasphemy under the guise of 'fiction' there would be an outcry, but only because it's blatant blasphemy)... It's a book that requires knowledge and discernment and if the reader lacks one or both of these things, that puts the reader in a bad spot.

You know what they say... The most convincing lies are 9/10th's truth.

Friend of Jesus
Jan 31st 2009, 09:26 AM
True, but I don't think the Shack in particular is a lie with truths in it. (From what I could see) the Shack didn't contain anything false that would detract people from the gospel. The Holy Spirit in the form of a human does not cover the truth of Jesus dying so we could be forgiven and made righteous in his sight.

Athanasius
Jan 31st 2009, 04:33 PM
True, but I don't think the Shack in particular is a lie with truths in it. (From what I could see) the Shack didn't contain anything false that would detract people from the gospel. The Holy Spirit in the form of a human does not cover the truth of Jesus dying so we could be forgiven and made righteous in his sight.

You don't think misrepresenting God is a detraction from the Gospel?

Friend of Jesus
Jan 31st 2009, 10:13 PM
You don't think misrepresenting God is a detraction from the Gospel?

Not in the sense in which the Shack does it, no

Athanasius
Feb 1st 2009, 12:37 AM
Not in the sense in which the Shack does it, no

I'm not referring to it's portrayl of God in terms of physical image ;)

Friend of Jesus
Feb 1st 2009, 09:13 AM
I'm not referring to it's portrayl of God in terms of physical image ;)

Then can you tell me what you are referring to? That usually helps :P

Athanasius
Feb 1st 2009, 11:48 PM
Then can you tell me what you are referring to? That usually helps :P

Do you have any idea what I would be referring to?

Friend of Jesus
Feb 2nd 2009, 08:45 AM
Possibly:

-The wounds of the cross on the Father.
-The Father appears as a motherly figure.
-Not much mentioned about God's Holiness

Athanasius
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:36 AM
Possibly:

-The wounds of the cross on the Father.
-The Father appears as a motherly figure.
-Not much mentioned about God's Holiness

Lack of a call to repentance for Mac's actions...

Friend of Jesus
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:00 AM
Lack of a call to repentance for Mac's actions...

I seem to recall two distinct moments in the book where there is a call to repent, there may have been more.

Namely: Mac goes behind a waterfall to speak with God and is put in a spot where he has to judge his own children, when he realises he can't, he repents for judging others and mistrusting God.

Another instance is where Mac is asked by God to forgive the man who killed his daughter. After an internal struggle, he does forgive him and as a result he lets go of that burden.

The latter isn't directly asking for forgiveness, but it is still turning from sin and back to God. However, the former is perhaps the climax of the entire book- at which point Mac repents most definately.

So I don't really see where you're coming from

catholicdude
Feb 4th 2009, 02:02 AM
Hi, it looks like we've moved past idolatry and saints so I was wondering if we could talk about sola scriptura, I obviously don't believe it, and you obviously do. I was just curious for what your reasoning is.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Feb 4th 2009, 04:52 AM
I seem to recall two distinct moments in the book where there is a call to repent, there may have been more.

Namely: Mac goes behind a waterfall to speak with God and is put in a spot where he has to judge his own children, when he realises he can't, he repents for judging others and mistrusting God.

Another instance is where Mac is asked by God to forgive the man who killed his daughter. After an internal struggle, he does forgive him and as a result he lets go of that burden.

The latter isn't directly asking for forgiveness, but it is still turning from sin and back to God. However, the former is perhaps the climax of the entire book- at which point Mac repents most definately.

So I don't really see where you're coming from

Sorry, Catholicdude is right. Not trying to dodge your question (please start another thread if you'd like to discuss this).


Hi, it looks like we've moved past idolatry and saints so I was wondering if we could talk about sola scriptura, I obviously don't believe it, and you obviously do. I was just curious for what your reasoning is.

Mind defining sola scriptura for us?

catholicdude
Feb 6th 2009, 11:20 PM
Mind defining sola scriptura for us?

I always understood that people that submit to sola scriptura belive that the Bible is the sole rule of fath for the Christian. People that believe in sola scriptura believe the Holy Spirit will lead any individual to the correct interpretation of any given Scripture passage by comparing it's teaching with the rest of the Bible? I'm not sure if this is right, anyone care to correct me, or add anything?

Pax,
Zach

Revinius
Feb 7th 2009, 02:39 PM
I always understood that people that submit to sola scriptura belive that the Bible is the sole rule of fath for the Christian. People that believe in sola scriptura believe the Holy Spirit will lead any individual to the correct interpretation of any given Scripture passage by comparing it's teaching with the rest of the Bible? I'm not sure if this is right, anyone care to correct me, or add anything?

Pax,
Zach

That sounds more like solo scriptura

Athanasius
Feb 7th 2009, 03:01 PM
That sounds more like solo scriptura

That's why I asked, seems to be a common misunderstanding.

catholicdude
Feb 8th 2009, 03:54 AM
That's why I asked, seems to be a common misunderstanding.

If that's not it, what is sola scriptura?

Athanasius
Feb 8th 2009, 05:38 AM
If that's not it, what is sola scriptura?

That any claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture as canon (measuring rod). If it does not contradict scripture - i.e. God - then it passes. If it contradicts scripture, it does not pass.

catholicdude
Feb 8th 2009, 05:56 AM
I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura, most Protestants I've met agree with my idea of it, that's where I got the definiton. Also, can you provide scriptural proof for this belief?

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Feb 8th 2009, 06:05 AM
I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura, most Protestants I've met agree with my idea of it, that's where I got the definiton. Also, can you provide scriptural proof for this belief

Majority based in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

Revinius
Feb 8th 2009, 02:06 PM
I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura,

I concur with Xel on his definition.

catholicdude
Feb 12th 2009, 09:56 PM
That any claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture as canon (measuring rod). If it does not contradict scripture - i.e. God - then it passes. If it contradicts scripture, it does not pass.

Ok, but what does it mean to be the Word of God, how do you determine your beliefs? doesn't that play into my definition?

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Feb 19th 2009, 04:46 AM
Ok, but what does it mean to be the Word of God, how do you determine your beliefs? doesn't that play into my definition?

Pax,
Zach

You're asking the same question.

catholicdude
Feb 21st 2009, 12:32 AM
So, you just take everything scripture says at face value? That's where you get your beliefs?

I'm going to make a few assumptions here, so, my apologies if they're way off. I'm going to assume, from your definition, that the Bible is your sole rule of faith because it is the inspired Word of God. I'm also going to assume that this belief, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, comes from 2 Timothy 3:16. With these assumptions in mind, I'd like to address them.

First, I'd like to address 2 Timothy 3:16, I want to show what the Church makes of this verse and surrounding verses.

2 Timothy 3:15-17

"15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

I would first like to point out that these "scriptures" that Paul is refering to, that Timothy knew from "infancy", must be refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament wasn't formally defined until around 400 I believe. So what this is saying is that the Old Testament should be the sole rule of faith, no Christian believes this.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but I have looked up a few things, one thing is that the word rendered "profitable" is ophelimos in Greek. Ophelimos means "useful" not "sufficient". Another thing I see is that the "man of God" is made perfect, Paul is writing this to Timothy, a bishop. What this is implying is that bishops are mad eperfect not just any individual reader.

Here I'd like to show the previous two verses:

"13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them"

Paul first shows that evil main will fall away from Jesus' teachings, so he tells Timothy to continue in the things which have been commited to them. In other words oral Tradition, supporting his injunction in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 to stand fast to the traditions which have been handed down.

To address the first assumption, how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Feb 21st 2009, 02:13 AM
So, you just take everything scripture says at face value? That's where you get your beliefs?

I'm going to make a few assumptions here, so, my apologies if they're way off. I'm going to assume, from your definition, that the Bible is your sole rule of faith because it is the inspired Word of God. I'm also going to assume that this belief, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, comes from 2 Timothy 3:16. With these assumptions in mind, I'd like to address them.

First, I'd like to address 2 Timothy 3:16, I want to show what the Church makes of this verse and surrounding verses.

2 Timothy 3:15-17

"15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

I would first like to point out that these "scriptures" that Paul is refering to, that Timothy knew from "infancy", must be refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament wasn't formally defined until around 400 I believe. So what this is saying is that the Old Testament should be the sole rule of faith, no Christian believes this.

I'm going to be honest with you, it's getting a little tiring all these assumptions you pull on "us" while you attempt to differentiate yourself [as Catholic] and then paint us as if we're persecuting you or some how against you because you're Catholic. Cut it out.

You are correct, Paul is referring to the Tanakh, the Pentateuch, the Torah, the "Old Testament" (no one denied this). It isn't because the New Testament wasn't "formally defined" until "around 400" (which I will disagree with but is superfluous to this discussion). It's because at the time of Paul's writing to Timothy, there was very little in the way of New Testament, simple as that.

Moving on to two things:

1. You've completely missed what I've been saying
2. What do you mean "no Christian believes this"?

Addressing the first point - read 2 Timothy 3, focus on 15-17 if you must then do this: Take the Old Testament as inspired and against the Old Testament compare New Testament writings. Do you see how they cohere and form a continuance of revelation? (thus one must understand what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying and what I'm saying) Is it any wonder why Paul's writings were considered equal (this is stated in scripture) with Moses'? That is what I mean when I say scripture is a measuring rod - that we believe in sola scriptural, not solo scripture, as you keep trying to insinuate.

Which forces me to beg the question; why in the world do you keep returning to the word 'sole'? I haven't used it, scripture hasn't used it... You've used it - stop forcing it, you're completely missing the point.

As for the second point I will simply cay that 'Christians' are quite aware of and acknowledge what I just stated.



I'm not a Greek scholar, but I have looked up a few things, one thing is that the word rendered "profitable" is ophelimos in Greek. Ophelimos means "useful" not "sufficient". Another thing I see is that the "man of God" is made perfect, Paul is writing this to Timothy, a bishop. What this is implying is that bishops are mad eperfect not just any individual reader.

You're joking, right? What else is there to say but that this is non-sense.



Here I'd like to show the previous two verses:

"13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them"

Paul first shows that evil main will fall away from Jesus' teachings, so he tells Timothy to continue in the things which have been commited to them. In other words oral Tradition, supporting his injunction in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 to stand fast to the traditions which have been handed down.

To address the first assumption, how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

Why you have all these assumptions and go on these tangents is beyond me (you know what they say about assumptions). To answer your question (how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God) - red herring; stay on topic and don't keep asking questions that have already been answered ad nauseum.

catholicdude
Mar 2nd 2009, 10:09 PM
I'm going to be honest with you, it's getting a little tiring all these assumptions you pull on "us" while you attempt to differentiate yourself [as Catholic] and then paint us as if we're persecuting you or some how against you because you're Catholic. Cut it out.

You are correct, Paul is referring to the Tanakh, the Pentateuch, the Torah, the "Old Testament" (no one denied this). It isn't because the New Testament wasn't "formally defined" until "around 400" (which I will disagree with but is superfluous to this discussion). It's because at the time of Paul's writing to Timothy, there was very little in the way of New Testament, simple as that.

Moving on to two things:

1. You've completely missed what I've been saying
2. What do you mean "no Christian believes this"?

Addressing the first point - read 2 Timothy 3, focus on 15-17 if you must then do this: Take the Old Testament as inspired and against the Old Testament compare New Testament writings. Do you see how they cohere and form a continuance of revelation? (thus one must understand what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying and what I'm saying) Is it any wonder why Paul's writings were considered equal (this is stated in scripture) with Moses'? That is what I mean when I say scripture is a measuring rod - that we believe in sola scriptural, not solo scripture, as you keep trying to insinuate.

Which forces me to beg the question; why in the world do you keep returning to the word 'sole'? I haven't used it, scripture hasn't used it... You've used it - stop forcing it, you're completely missing the point.

As for the second point I will simply cay that 'Christians' are quite aware of and acknowledge what I just stated.



You're joking, right? What else is there to say but that this is non-sense.



Why you have all these assumptions and go on these tangents is beyond me (you know what they say about assumptions). To answer your question (how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God) - red herring; stay on topic and don't keep asking questions that have already been answered ad nauseum.

Ok, I reread my post and I admit I looked very stupid and disrespectful and I'm sorry. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. I've just recently realized (with help from my girlfriend) that I don't really consider other peoples opinions, and can be very disrespectful, and I really don't want to be like that.

I believe sol"o" scriptura is wrong. Period. I now realize that if I wanted to talk about it and see the belief from different angles, I shouldn't have approached it the way I did. No one should ever approach anything like that. I know this probably sounds cheesy and that I'm just trying to cover my butt so to speak, but I'm really sorry. I don't want to be the Jack Chick of Catholicism, if it's not too bold to say. With my assumptions I lumped all Protestants together and that's really a dumb thing to do, I'm really sorry Xel, and everyone else that I may have offended (not that you were offended Xel, but I'm sure that kinda put you over the edge of annoyance.)

I still want to talk about this subject though, so in regards to it . . . In the earlier definition you gave, you said all claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture (I may be paraphrasing), what I want to know is, why Scripture? Why not Moby Dick? I know it sounds silly, but I'm trying to find a base for this conversation.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Mar 2nd 2009, 10:46 PM
Ok, I reread my post and I admit I looked very stupid and disrespectful and I'm sorry. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. I've just recently realized (with help from my girlfriend) that I don't really consider other peoples opinions, and can be very disrespectful, and I really don't want to be like that.

Girlfriend problems?



I believe sol"o" scriptura is wrong. Period. I now realize that if I wanted to talk about it and see the belief from different angles, I shouldn't have approached it the way I did. No one should ever approach anything like that. I know this probably sounds cheesy and that I'm just trying to cover my butt so to speak, but I'm really sorry. I don't want to be the Jack Chick of Catholicism, if it's not too bold to say. With my assumptions I lumped all Protestants together and that's really a dumb thing to do, I'm really sorry Xel, and everyone else that I may have offended (not that you were offended Xel, but I'm sure that kinda put you over the edge of annoyance.)

Don't worry about it. I was in the processing of splitting up with my fiancee so it wasn't you that brought me to the edge of annoyance. You're intelligent and just fine to discuss things with... Aside from what the girlfriend pointed out ;) Though we're all guilty of that.



I still want to talk about this subject though, so in regards to it . . . In the earlier definition you gave, you said all claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture (I may be paraphrasing), what I want to know is, why Scripture? Why not Moby Dick? I know it sounds silly, but I'm trying to find a base for this conversation.

Well, Moby Dick never claimed to be inspired of God.

catholicdude
Mar 2nd 2009, 11:42 PM
Girlfriend problems?

Nope, thankfully, she's really patient with me but she can also put me in my place if I'm getting far out of it. :D


Don't worry about it. I was in the processing of splitting up with my fiancee so it wasn't you that brought me to the edge of annoyance. You're intelligent and just fine to discuss things with... Aside from what the girlfriend pointed out ;) Though we're all guilty of that.

I'm sorry to hear about your split, hopefully things will work out for the best in the end. Thanks for the nice comments, too, I know it's not always easy to do something nice when someone's been such a hothead, but I'll try to cool down as best I can.


Well, Moby Dick never claimed to be inspired of God.

But, just because something claims to be insipred of God, or anything claims to be anything for that matter, doesn't mean it's true, right? I mean, the Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is inspired, is that different from the text claiming itself to be inspired? I'm not sure if the actual Book of Mormon claims to be inspired.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2009, 12:14 AM
But, just because something claims to be insipred of God, or anything claims to be anything for that matter, doesn't mean it's true, right? I mean, the Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is inspired, is that different from the text claiming itself to be inspired? I'm not sure if the actual Book of Mormon claims to be inspired.

Right, and that's where the rule comes in: if something or someone claims to have written a message from God, that message must be compared with scripture. The book of Mormon would be considered part of that because of what's his face who wrote it claimed it was from God. Though I would say the text itself making the claim is important.

catholicdude
Mar 3rd 2009, 12:21 AM
Right, and that's where the rule comes in: if something or someone claims to have written a message from God, that message must be compared with scripture. The book of Mormon would be considered part of that because of what's his face who wrote it claimed it was from God. Though I would say the text itself making the claim is important.

Ok, I get that, but how do we determine that scripture or the book of mormon is trustworthy or not? It would be pretty naive to just take the Bible at it's word.

BTW, not that you didn't really know this or anything, but it was Joseph Smith.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2009, 12:25 AM
Ok, I get that, but how do we determine that scripture or the book of mormon is trustworthy or not? It would be pretty naive to just take the Bible at it's word.

BTW, not that you didn't really know this or anything, but it was Joseph Smith.

Yeah, him and his spectacles. Well, one way of determining whether or not scripture's claim of divine authorship is authentic or not would be to take the claims of scripture - historical, philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, etc. - and apply them to the world as we know it. If things don't make sense then it's probably not trustworthy. Prophecy would be a good example of this.

Piccolo
Mar 4th 2009, 02:43 AM
Hey, Zach.

Well, I honestly don't know much at all about Catholicism. I'm a Nazarene. To be completely honest, I don't know much about that either!! :)

If you could explain some ways that our, well, denominations "differ", I'd appreciate that.

Revinius
Mar 4th 2009, 06:15 AM
Hey, Zach.

Well, I honestly don't know much at all about Catholicism. I'm a Nazarene. To be completely honest, I don't know much about that either!! :)

If you could explain some ways that our, well, denominations "differ", I'd appreciate that.

So you never cut your hair?

catholicdude
Mar 7th 2009, 05:35 AM
Yeah, him and his spectacles. Well, one way of determining whether or not scripture's claim of divine authorship is authentic or not would be to take the claims of scripture - historical, philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, etc. - and apply them to the world as we know it. If things don't make sense then it's probably not trustworthy. Prophecy would be a good example of this.

Ok, well, how do you know that we got all of the inspired texts? The Early Church Councils that took care of canon of the Bible had to sift through around 110 texts I believe. How can you be sure they got all of the right ones, unless you believe they couldn't get it wrong because God wouldn't let them, making them infallible? This also brings me to another point, those same Councils that determined the canon of the New Testament, affirmed the canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use today, on what grounds do Protestants not use them (I'm not trying to be some kind of accuser, I'm just curious why they don't use them)? I'd also like to say that I understand why you believe this and it does make sense, but, to me it can only make sense if the Councils were infallible.


Hey, Zach.

Well, I honestly don't know much at all about Catholicism. I'm a Nazarene. To be completely honest, I don't know much about that either!! :)

If you could explain some ways that our, well, denominations "differ", I'd appreciate that.

Well, I don't know much about Nazarenes, so I looked it up quick. From the little I read about it I see that you, too, believe in sola scriptura. I'm not sure if you're an advocater of solo scriptura, but I can tell you that Catholicism rejects both, well, kind of. From the definition of sola scriptura as seen above, I'm not sure if Catholicism would reject that definition, but I'd have to look it up. Ummmmmm...it looks like you believe in bing saved by faith alone? If you don't, I'm sorry, I honestly don't know much about this, but Catholicism does not acept the faith alone belief. Hmm, what else...well, that's what I can say for right now.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2009, 04:45 PM
Ok, well, how do you know that we got all of the inspired texts? The Early Church Councils that took care of canon of the Bible had to sift through around 110 texts I believe. How can you be sure they got all of the right ones, unless you believe they couldn't get it wrong because God wouldn't let them, making them infallible? This also brings me to another point, those same Councils that determined the canon of the New Testament, affirmed the canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use today, on what grounds do Protestants not use them (I'm not trying to be some kind of accuser, I'm just curious why they don't use them)? I'd also like to say that I understand why you believe this and it does make sense, but, to me it can only make sense if the Councils were infallible.

You're asking a question I've already answered. Protestants don't affirm the Apocryphal books as being inspired because one or more of their claims - historical, philosophical, metaphysical, etc. - do not properly relate to the world as we know it. In addition they contradict what is regarded as inspired scripture - God would not contradict himself so those books that don't cohere might be good for reading history but surely aren't inspired.

Again you're making too many assumptions and running with them.

apothanein kerdos
Mar 9th 2009, 11:54 PM
I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura, most Protestants I've met agree with my idea of it, that's where I got the definiton. Also, can you provide scriptural proof for this belief?

Pax,
Zach


You're wanting scriptural proof for a Catholic belief? The teaching of sola scriptura - by reformation standards and not modern misunderstandings by Catholics and Protestants - is very similar to the Catholic belief on the primacy of Scripture. The reason it was labeled sola scriptura was to emphasize that the catholic church at the time had moved away from its belief on prima scriptura.


I'm going to make a few assumptions here, so, my apologies if they're way off. I'm going to assume, from your definition, that the Bible is your sole rule of faith because it is the inspired Word of God. I'm also going to assume that this belief, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, comes from 2 Timothy 3:16. With these assumptions in mind, I'd like to address them.

This is an inherent strawman. Sola scriptura is not the same as solo scriptura. We simply teach that all things must be found in Scripture either implicitly or explicitly. Considering there is implicit commands within Scripture to test all beliefs with Scripture, we fall back to sola scriptura/prima scriptura.


In the earlier definition you gave, you said all claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture (I may be paraphrasing), what I want to know is, why Scripture? Why not Moby Dick? I know it sounds silly, but I'm trying to find a base for this conversation.

Because Scripture was given by divine revelation and Moby Dick wasn't. This is stuff even the Catholic Church teaches.


But, just because something claims to be insipred of God, or anything claims to be anything for that matter, doesn't mean it's true, right? I mean, the Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is inspired, is that different from the text claiming itself to be inspired? I'm not sure if the actual Book of Mormon claims to be inspired.

The plausibility and truthfulness of Scripture.

Though not a proof, the system Scripture puts forth is consistent. It doesn't contradict itself and it actually explains life (if one presupposes that the Christian view of God exists).

Again, I actually pull this definition from Peter Kreeft, an RCC philosopher.

You're questioning your own denomination as well mate. :)


Ok, I get that, but how do we determine that scripture or the book of mormon is trustworthy or not? It would be pretty naive to just take the Bible at it's word.

The errors in its creation and in what the book itself says. Have you read it?


Ok, well, how do you know that we got all of the inspired texts? The Early Church Councils that took care of canon of the Bible had to sift through around 110 texts I believe. How can you be sure they got all of the right ones, unless you believe they couldn't get it wrong because God wouldn't let them, making them infallible?
You believe wrongly.

There weren't that many, though there were quite a few. The reason the Bible canon was laid forward, however, was mainly because heretics were attempting to add in the extra books you speak of. However, most of the bishops who wrote from 70AD onwards used all the books we know in the New Testament, hardly ever using the others.

Furthermore, we know that the writings of Paul were considered Scripture simply by looking at the writings of Peter.

So yes, we know tradition is was composed the Scriptures, but it was "tradition" from the common-folk reading and not from some council. The council merely solidified what was already believed.


This also brings me to another point, those same Councils that determined the canon of the New Testament, affirmed the canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use today, on what grounds do Protestants not use them (I'm not trying to be some kind of accuser, I'm just curious why they don't use them)? I'd also like to say that I understand why you believe this and it does make sense, but, to me it can only make sense if the Councils were infallible.

Because of the Catholic's use of the Septuagint as opposed to using the actual Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint added in books that the Judean Hebrews didn't find inspired (for good reason). Protestants rely on the old Hebrew canon while Catholics rely on the canon of the Septuagint.


I'm not sure if you're an advocater of solo scriptura, but I can tell you that Catholicism rejects both, well, kind of. From the definition of sola scriptura as seen above, I'm not sure if Catholicism would reject that definition, but I'd have to look it up.

They don't, or didn't always. Like I said, sola scriptura is the same teaching as prima scriptura, with very few modifications.

catholicdude
Mar 11th 2009, 09:17 PM
You're asking a question I've already answered. Protestants don't affirm the Apocryphal books as being inspired because one or more of their claims - historical, philosophical, metaphysical, etc. - do not properly relate to the world as we know it. In addition they contradict what is regarded as inspired scripture - God would not contradict himself so those books that don't cohere might be good for reading history but surely aren't inspired.

Again you're making too many assumptions and running with them.

Sorry

Could you give an example of where the deutero-canon contradicts what everyone considers inspired?

Pax,
Zach

catholicdude
Mar 11th 2009, 09:33 PM
Because of the Catholic's use of the Septuagint as opposed to using the actual Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint added in books that the Judean Hebrews didn't find inspired (for good reason). Protestants rely on the old Hebrew canon while Catholics rely on the canon of the Septuagint.

Actually, the Jews had many different canons, the Septuagint included. The "old Hebrew canon" you're refering to is the Masoretic texts I'm sure, they date back to the ninth century. I'm also sure that you've heard of the dead sea scrolls, proving that all of the Septuagint was written in Hebrew. The dead sea scrolls date back to the second century, why you are deciding to deny historical fact I'm not sure.

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Mar 11th 2009, 10:28 PM
Sorry

Could you give an example of where the deutero-canon contradicts what everyone considers inspired?

Pax,
Zach

Alms giving atoning for sins. The book of Tobit.

Athanasius
Mar 11th 2009, 10:29 PM
Actually, the Jews had many different canons, the Septuagint included. The "old Hebrew canon" you're refering to is the Masoretic texts I'm sure, they date back to the ninth century. I'm also sure that you've heard of the dead sea scrolls, proving that all of the Septuagint was written in Hebrew. The dead sea scrolls date back to the second century, why you are deciding to deny historical fact I'm not sure.

Pax,
Zach

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. To prove your point you're going to have to point to the Hebrew scriptures you're referring to which contain the apocryphal books. Then we can work from that point forward.

apothanein kerdos
Mar 11th 2009, 11:26 PM
Actually, the Jews had many different canons, the Septuagint included. The "old Hebrew canon" you're refering to is the Masoretic texts I'm sure, they date back to the ninth century. I'm also sure that you've heard of the dead sea scrolls, proving that all of the Septuagint was written in Hebrew. The dead sea scrolls date back to the second century, why you are deciding to deny historical fact I'm not sure.

Pax,
Zach


That's cute. ;)

What you're failing to note is that the Qumran community was quite eccentric to begin with. Furthermore, all it shows is that some of the Septuagint was translated back into Hebrew.

The fact remains that the Masoric text, or the main text among Jews that spoke Hebrew rather than Greek (i.e. Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc) was the accepted text among those Jews. Though the Canon of the Torah was quite fluid, the majority of Jewish scholarship prior to Christ accepted the Masoric text. The Septuagint wasn't accepted (nor were the books) due to their contradictory nature with the rest of the OT and their Hellenistic tone.

*Hope*
Mar 15th 2009, 01:23 PM
Did catholicdude disappear?

catholicdude
Mar 17th 2009, 05:03 AM
Did catholicdude disappear?

Did you miss me? :D ;)


The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. To prove your point you're going to have to point to the Hebrew scriptures you're referring to which contain the apocryphal books. Then we can work from that point forward.

Uhhhhhhh, the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think I already mentioned them.


Alms giving atoning for sins. The book of Tobit.

Researching...


That's cute. ;)

Thanks? I can't tell if you actually think it's cute or if you think I'm being naive...


What you're failing to note is that the Qumran community was quite eccentric to begin with.

What does this have to do with what I said? I'm pretty tired and might not be able to make the connection.


Furthermore, all it shows is that some of the Septuagint was translated back into Hebrew.

This suggests that the books were written in Hebrew first, only helping my point of view. I'm sure that's not what you meant to say though so I'll dismiss the "back" part. Why will you believe the Masoretic texts, but not much older documents? Just because they don't fit with your position?


The fact remains that the Masoric text, or the main text among Jews that spoke Hebrew rather than Greek (i.e. Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc) was the accepted text among those Jews. Though the Canon of the Torah was quite fluid, the majority of Jewish scholarship prior to Christ accepted the Masoric text. The Septuagint wasn't accepted (nor were the books) due to their contradictory nature with the rest of the OT and their Hellenistic tone.

The Jews didn't have an official canon until the fifth century. Furthermore, Judaism stopped being right when the Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah.The early Christians believed all of the Septuagint was inspired. I would not be surprised if the Jews said the deutero-canon wasn't inspired just to set themselves apart from us Christians. One thing I've seen in the New Testament, time and time again, is that the leaders of Judaism were not the best of people. Things that are binding for Jews are not bound on us.

Much preaching was done in Greek speaking areas, how could the Apostles preach from a book that the natives, whom they were trying to evangelize, couldn't understand? This is where the Septuagint comes in, that's what they used. Before this conversation gets here, if it ever does, I'm just going to say right now that the deutero-canononical books are quoted in the New Testament. That's all I can think to say for now...

Pax,
Zach

apothanein kerdos
Mar 17th 2009, 08:17 PM
Thanks? I can't tell if you actually think it's cute or if you think I'm being naive...

Neither. I think there's some misinformation about Church history on both sides of the isle. Protestants simply ignore it and Roman Catholics misunderstand it.


What does this have to do with what I said? I'm pretty tired and might not be able to make the connection.


They weren't considered practicing Jews by most Jews back then. They get no mention in Scripture because they were extremely irrelevant. They were an apocalyptic group that waited out in the desert. Using them as a reference point for theology is the equivalent of using Quakers as a summarization of American Christianity - though they [Quakers] might have the basic tenets down, they're so far different from the rest of American Christianity that it wouldn't be wise to use them to justify your point about what Christians believe.


This suggests that the books were written in Hebrew first, only helping my point of view. I'm sure that's not what you meant to say though so I'll dismiss the "back" part. Why will you believe the Masoretic texts, but not much older documents? Just because they don't fit with your position?

I believe the Masoric text because that's what the majority of the Jews believe. The Septuagint is written in a Hellenistic, not Jewish style. The apocryphal books, though interesting and containing truth, also have some factual errors. They're inconsistent with the masoric text. The Septuagint changes a lot of the meanings of the Masoric text. The Word was originally given in Hebrew, not in Greek. The Jews in Judea wouldn't have used the Septuagint as the Pharisees only used the Masoric text. Jesus and all the disciples would have been raised under the Masoric text, not the Septuagint.

The list actually goes on from there...


The Jews didn't have an official canon until the fifth century

Wrong. Keep in mind, you're trying to explain Jewish history to a Jew. :)

We know that by the 1st century, the Jews only accepted 22 books (see Josephus). The reason this differs from the Protestant 39 is because the Jews didn't (and don't) separate Kings, Chronicles, and samuel. Likewise, the twelve minor prophets were at one point on one single scroll. However, Josephus speaks quite plainly that the Jews only accepted 22 books, which corresponds to the Protestant canon and not the Catholic one.

He goes on to argue that the canon was actually closed long before Christ ever came on the scene - it was closed before the Maccabean revolt. All of this, of course, was prior to the Septuagint.

But let's go further.

Origen even pointed out that the Jews only had 22 canonical books and he was writing in the 2nd century or 3rd century (can't remember). What is more, however, is that Origin calls those 22 books canon, but does not reference the apocryphal works of the Septuagint.

And just to clear this up - the Jewish canon was solved in 90AD. Due to the controversy the Septuagint had caused, the Rabbis got together and established that the apocryphal books of the Septuagint were not allowed into the Jewish canon.

Furthermore, Judaism stopped being right when the Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah.

The canon was closed prior to Christ - so your argument doesn't work. The only reason we see a controversy is that many Jews, having lived in Greek speaking lands, began to adopt Greek ideas and the language. They added the apocryphal books because they had a Hellenistic taste, which allowed Jews to fit in better with the Gentiles. In anti-Hellenistic areas, such as Judea, the Septuagint wouldn't have been used because there would have been no need for it.


he early Christians believed all of the Septuagint was inspired. I would not be surprised if the Jews said the deutero-canon wasn't inspired just to set themselves apart from us Christians. One thing I've seen in the New Testament, time and time again, is that the leaders of Judaism were not the best of people.

That's reading quite a bit into the issue. For one, the early Christians (outside of Judea) could only read Greek, so they were limited to using the Septuagint. Even the Jews who witnessed to the Gentiles would only quote from the Septuagint. However, it's interesting to note that in none of the epistles do we see the apocryphal works of the Septuagint quoted as Scripture.

Likewise, not all of the early Christians believed it to be inspired. Origen and Jerome both had questions about its inspiration, wondering if maybe the apocryphal works should have been placed on a lower canon and the other works on a higher canon. Such an issue wasn't decided until after Luther's protest of the Catholic church.


Much preaching was done in Greek speaking areas, how could the Apostles preach from a book that the natives, whom they were trying to evangelize, couldn't understand? This is where the Septuagint comes in, that's what they used. Before this conversation gets here, if it ever does, I'm just going to say right now that the deutero-canononical books are quoted in the New Testament. That's all I can think to say for now...

And so are pagan philosophers and poets. What's your point? The issue is that they're not quoted as Scripture. They're not given the same attention as Scripture. This means that they were viewed as important, historical, and even authoritative at spots, but not canonical Scripture.

catholicdude
Mar 25th 2009, 10:59 PM
I have an answer, I just have to figure out a way to say it...

Pax,
Zach

*Hope*
Mar 26th 2009, 01:28 AM
I have an answer, I just have to figure out a way to say it...

Pax,
Zach

If you don't mind me interjecting, I'd just like to encourage you to ponder the things that are being said in here. You are being given some very wise counsel by people who have studied this in depth (and not just by googling it). I hope that the response you're working on isn't just to try to "win" a debate, but that you're truly searching for the truth.

Carry on! :)

catholicdude
Apr 19th 2009, 05:27 PM
If you don't mind me interjecting, I'd just like to encourage you to ponder the things that are being said in here. You are being given some very wise counsel by people who have studied this in depth (and not just by googling it). I hope that the response you're working on isn't just to try to "win" a debate, but that you're truly searching for the truth.

Carry on! :)

I don't mind you interjecting :). I do ponder these things and I am always striving for the truth, after all, Jesus is the truth right? Unfortunately I am trying to win this debate because I truly believe my position is the truth and I want to make the truth known to everyone. You may think now that I'm not actually pondering these positions at all but I hold my position as true because of one fact that I am convinced of: the Catholic Church is the Church that was started by Christ and is the infallible teacher of the faith, the Church says the say books in question are canonical so I believe they are. If you really want to get into the debate of whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church go ahead. But for future reference, I will always hold the Catholic position as true and defend with all my might. Thanks for your input Hope.

Pax,
Zach

catholicdude
Apr 19th 2009, 05:54 PM
Ok Xel, this is how I got it out of the Catechism:

There are two conversions, the conversion of Baptism, and the conversion of the heart in repentance. When you convert your heart you radically turn away from sin and reform your life but complete conversion is done through praying, fasting, and almsgiving. So the turning away from sin takes away 90% of sin and praying, fasting, and almsgiving takes away the last 10%. That's an extremely terse version of it and if you want to see the scripture citations you can go to this (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm) link, it is the Catechism so I don't know if you'll allow me to post it.

By the way, even the New Testament doesn't disagree with this concept, what about 1 Peter 4:8

"8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins."

That seems convincing to me.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. My computer is broke right now (I'm at my mom's house right now) so I don't know when I'll get to reply again, I'll be on for a while today but after that, I don't know.

Athanasius
Apr 19th 2009, 06:36 PM
Ok Xel, this is how I got it out of the Catechism:

There are two conversions, the conversion of Baptism, and the conversion of the heart in repentance. When you convert your heart you radically turn away from sin and reform your life but complete conversion is done through praying, fasting, and almsgiving. So the turning away from sin takes away 90% of sin and praying, fasting, and almsgiving takes away the last 10%. That's an extremely terse version of it and if you want to see the scripture citations you can go to this (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm) link, it is the Catechism so I don't know if you'll allow me to post it.

By the way, even the New Testament doesn't disagree with this concept, what about 1 Peter 4:8

"8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins."

That seems convincing to me.

If you were not saved by actions then why do you believe actions are the 'way' to 'complete conversion'? (Save the 'action' of confessing Christ as Savior.) It occurs to me that 'conversion of the heart' is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer as he allows Jesus Christ to renew the mind. Prayer, fasting and almsgiving do not take away '10%' of the sin we're still guilty of while believing in Jesus - turning away from sin - takes away the other 90%. What an abhorrent doctrine to say that the grace of God was not sufficient. All sin is covered in accepting Christ and sanctification is then the result of the work of God in the believer.

Furthermore, The almsgiving mentioned in Tobit is not the same as the 'charity' (or in other words, love) mentioned in 1 Peter 4:8. Almsgiving is defined in the Catholic encyclopedia as, "a material service rendered to the poor for Christ's sake". While almsgiving may be the result of love, this verse isn't saying the same thing as 1 Peter. Love is love, 'I forgive you'. Almsgiving is, 'Here's remission for your sin, but first, go act.

catholicdude
Apr 19th 2009, 07:51 PM
Ok, I didn't think I said that very well. Ok, I'll say it a different way.

Almsgiving, like you said, is any material favour done to assist the needy, and prompted by charity. The way I see it is that God gives you the grace that comes with charity, and almsgiving is the act of using that grace for the benefit of whoever. So almsgiving is actually using the grace given to you, which is how the sins are purged away, I don't think you'll ever be convinced but I can't think of any other way to say it. I have a question: Do you believe that charity is necessary for salvation, or just faith?

Pax,
Zach

Athanasius
Apr 19th 2009, 08:37 PM
Ok, I didn't think I said that very well. Ok, I'll say it a different way.

Almsgiving, like you said, is any material favour done to assist the needy, and prompted by charity. The way I see it is that God gives you the grace that comes with charity, and almsgiving is the act of using that grace for the benefit of whoever. So almsgiving is actually using the grace given to you, which is how the sins are purged away, I don't think you'll ever be convinced but I can't think of any other way to say it. I have a question: Do you believe that charity is necessary for salvation, or just faith?

Pax,
Zach

I'm very open minded and quite easily convinced, assuming the evidential object(s) of that conviction are substantial. If I seem close minded it's only because I demand a very high level of evidence for the thing in question.

I agree with you to a point; God's grace and love covers us, changes us, and as a result we show others grace and love others (because God first loved us). I disagree, however, when you take the next step: I do not believe almsgiving purges away sins any more than I believe love purges away sins - they don't (unless we're speaking the love of God, then that does).

To your question, I believe just faith is necessary for salvation. However, I believe charity to be the outworking of that faith. If I met an apparent Christian who lacked the gifts of God, the grace of the Spirit, charity, etc. Then I would most likely question - to myself - whether or not they are sincere. To make clear, though, I do believe one can be Christian and live a completely miserable life mostly devoid of charity.

Raptor
Apr 24th 2009, 05:43 PM
Hope you two don't mind me putting in my two cents, but this seems like the old arguement of Faith Vs Works. Faith is all that's sufficient for Salvation, but, without the works, how do we know that someone is really saved correct? Forgive me If I'm wrong about where this is going.

The way I see it, We don't need Faith or Works, we need Faith THAT Works.

Ephesians 2:8-9(KJV) reads: For by Grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

-Raptor, out.