Featured Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

Amen your verse 100% correct.

I don't know whether you guys are Calvinists or not. If you guys are into the TULIP complete or partial.

Following that verse is: 20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

So it states "CANNOT LOVE GOD". Would it be correct to conclude you don't have the ability to Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior UNTIL after you love the brothers you do see?

Notice the direction of inability stated by scripture.


Matthew 5
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Jesus points out Love as a common ability.

 

Most of what I a agree with Baptists is in regards to Christology, but alas, there is a big glaring flaw in your beliefs that I don't. ONE is that if I was truly a saved believer as a Baptist I would surely have left Catholicism by now and returned to evangelicalism However, you all cannot even agree to what that would look like! Don't believe me?
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/easy-believism-and-false-converts.81901/

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/false-converts-in-the-church.94505/#post-2148508

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/i-am-a-false-convert-love-my-sin-and-headed-to-hell.87708/

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/joel-osteen-true-christian-or-false-convert.83498/

https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...pastors-advocate-unbiblical-evangelism.85500/

Then there is 'personal interpretation' if scripture which was recently advocated in this thread. To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture. There are umpteen new protestant (ok, call them evangelical if you wish) denominations cropping up because of it. Sure, individuals can interpret the bible correctly individually, but how can youassert that you always do, or even mostly do, given that you come up with such widely varying interpretations as CONSTANTLY occurs on this very board??? It would seem that individual interpretations of the bible have helped spawn over 34,000 distinct Protestant (evanelical?) denominations in 238 countries. Can they all possibly be correct? Obviously not. I do not think Christ had this in mind when he established the Church. If the Holy Spirit were guiding everyone, would He really guide you to different conclusions that would pit brother against brother? What lesson is to be learned from that? A Christian in full communion with the Catholic Church...or Christian not in full communion ...yes can understand a passage of scripture correctly..and yes they can be guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so...this is true.
However such an individual is not "protected from error" in so doing..and can get things wrong-heck otherwise everyone of you would be in agreement on scripture.

The Church's teaching give us guidance on how to interpret Scripture. In other words, the catechism and other teachings of the Church shed light on the Truth (there is only ONE) in a way that helps Catholics to interpret and frame Scripture. But the Church does not give Catholics the kind of lock-step binding instruction about Scripture that in previous post you are claiming it does. In many ways, the way Catholics look at Scripture is not very different than the way you 'fighting fundies' read Scripture, and is much freer than the way most fundamentalists read Scripture. The Church teaches, and so did the reformers, that Mary was ever-virgin. So Catholics keep that in mind when interpreting the passages of the Gospels that refer to relatives of Jesus. Obviously, if Catholics follow the Church on this teaching, they will be compelled to interpret those Scriptures in a way that allows for the perpetual virginity of Mary. BUT the Church does not mandate that Catholics believe that those referred to in some translations as "brethern" of the Lord are Joseph's children from a previous marriage (although many do) or that they are cousins (which some others believe) or whatever. I mention this particular example as it is the most restrictive interpretation point that comes to my mind. Even here, the teaching of the Church on Mary frames the interpretation of those passages, but does not force a lock-step view of every word. In most other areas, Catholics have far more "room", but Catholics are asked to intepret Scripture in a way that is consistent with the teachings of the Church.

I am a Christian! A Catholic! A Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth! Thank you, Lord Jesus for saving me by faith in the shed blood of the cross! -despite the claims of these board members! DHK claims I would 'come out of Her' if I were 'truly saved' but, years later I am even more convinced than ever I am in the right Church.

Unfortunately, you now only allow a handful (literally) of former Baptist Catholics to have membership on this board, so you posts anti-Catholic threads like crazy and then say: 'See! They got nuttin!' Reading the threads on this board of the Catholic responses to the rabid anti-Catholic threads started by you 'fighting fundies' convinced me I need to study Catholicism much more. As a result, I now am one! I remember as a member of Van Nuys Baptist Church (Los Angeles area) being astounded as the associate pastor announced he was becoming a Catholic and, of course, resigning! We have a group of former evangelical pastors in our parish that meets weekly to pray for the conversion of other evangelical pastors and church workers and praise God it is happening!

 

What about those threads. There is no serious doctrine being discussed. The differences between Calvinism and non-Cal have been discussed ever since Augustine entered the stage. As to the others, they have discussed methods of evangelism and other matters of rather trivial importance. Remember this is a debate board. If we didn't bring up matters for discussion and debate there would be no use for the board and we would just shut it down. Is that what you propose? What a ridiculous proposition Walter?
This is a board, not a church. It is not even a denomination; it is a board, an internet website that encourages the discussion of varying ideas. Within our various churches we have far greater unity than what is represented on this board. So your mischaracterization is disgraceful and deceitful.

All truly evangelical churches have more in common with each other than they have with the RCC. They have the gospel in common, whereas the RCC is anti-gospel.
They have soul liberty in common, but the RCC is against soul liberty.
They have the priesthood of the believer in common but the RCC is against priesthood of the believer.
They have the fact that the Bible is our only authority or sola scritura in common but the RCC is against that.

The RCC lies in great apostasy. It denies the fundamentals of the faith; does not preach the Bible, and has a "private interpretation" of the scriptures" which is then forced upon all its members. This, the Bible condemns.

Paul disagreed with Barnabas, and they parted ways. In fact it was a very contentious argument:

Acts 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

Paul confronted Peter with his error and told him that he was to blame for the mess that had occurred
. Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

He is "protected" because he cannot search the scriptures as he is commanded to do, and he cannot go against the authority of the RCC, even when they are wrong.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--This obligation the RCC has taken away from him.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--This example of soul liberty the RCC would never agree to because they are so anti-Word of God.

They don't know how to interpret the scriptures themselves. It is the blind leading the blind.

Freer? You are bound in slavery to a Catechism. The Catechism is contrary to the Word.
You say you are saved. Prove it! Salvation is or includes regeneration which is the new birth. Are you born again, and were you born again as a Baptist?
The Baptists teach that one is born again by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God; a work of God that ends up by an individual putting their faith and trust in Christ, and Christ putting the individual into His family.
The RCC believes that Baptism = the new birth. This is heresy, as baptism has nothing to do with the new birth.
Now I don't want a theological discussion. I don't want a debate.
According to the definitions given, when were you born again? As a Baptist, according to Scripture?
Or, as a Catholic according to their Catechism? If it is according to their Catechism you were never saved in the first place and cannot claim that privilege.

False. The Reformers were Protestants first. They Protested against RCC doctrine. It is foolish to make a statement like that.

IOW they are not allowed to interpret the scriptures. They are not allowed to believe what Mat.13:55 actually says: that Christ did have brothers sisters.
They are not allowed to believe what Mat.1:25 says, that Jesus was her "firstborn son," and that the verse gives the direct implication that other children followed. No, the RCC tells them they cannot, because it is the RCC that has their own "private interpretation," which is condemned in the Bible.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

If you believe that the new birth is of baptism you are not a Christian.
If you believe salvation is by baptismal regeneration you are not a Christian.
If you believe that salvation is through the RCC you are not a Christian.
--The RCC teaches all of the above heresies.

I was 20 years a Catholic, and thus have much experience as to what goes on in a Catholic church.
I have been studying Catholic doctrine for a long time since.
I would say that my knowledge of the RCC is far more extensive than yours, and I know that you have entered into an apostate church, one that is leading people to hell and not to heaven. How you can ever have peace in that, I would never know.

 

Consider this scripture:

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Now can you answer this question honestly:

Does the spirit that dwells in you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?

 

Amen, I am a child of God. I also believe you are a child of God.


Acts 17
28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29“Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Here we have Paul quoting PAGAN scripture and telling them they are children of God and most of them are going to reject even try to hurt Paul.

 

Paul was using a different word.
The KJV renders verse 29:
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
The word is genos from which generation or kindred comes from. It refers to all of God's creation.
The word usually used for "child" or "children" if "teknos" a different word. But that is the word that Paul uses in Rom.8:16. It has the literal meaning of child, daughter or son, whereas genos has a number of meanings.

The follow-up question is: If you say yes, how do you know that the spirit that dwells in you is the Holy Spirit? And what evidence does He give you? IOW how does he bear witness with your spirit that you know you are God's child?

 

Sorry, DHK

Really, DHK? You have more in common with United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ which both say that Jesus Christ is not the only way of salvation and it is ok to deny Christ Deity and your saved??? More than the American Baptist 'church' down the road that which claims Hell doesn't exist? That actually says the resurrection was 'spiritual'? That believes that same-sex marriage is to be celebrated??More than the United Methodist Church down the street that concurs with both??? and denies the Virgin Birth??? Yeah, I believe your seething hatred of the Catholic Church runs so deep that you would rather worship in those 'churches' than a Catholic Church. And, here is what I believe, DHK: Like Lutherans, Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians (are Presbies not Christians either,DHK, the Westminster Confession clearly expresses a belief in Baptismal Regeneration and I called a local Presbie pastor friend just to be sure!), Anglicans, etc, etc, BTW, my Presbie friend only laughed when he read this thread!

I believe that the salvation 'process' usually begins with baptism but certainly does not end there. It is quite possible it begins with faith as in those who are past the age of accountability and have not been baptized. The bible clearly says both are required. If a person doesn't come faith by way of the cross and put their trust in Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the cross he WILL NOT BE SAVED. I have put my trust in Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the Cross to expunge my sins (a teaching of the Catholic Church), DHK and repented of my sins (also taught by the Church). When I was a Baptist I ABSOLUTELY believed that as well, btw. And, before you go into how baptism is a 'work' (it actually is, but not a work of man but a work of God) here is what Catholics actually believe about works and their relation to salvation: faith and works
by Bill Bilton
Excerpts:
‘Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ. What Our Lord demands is ``faith that worketh by charity .'' (Gal. 5 :6). Read Matthew 25:31-46, which describes the Last Judgment as being based on works of charity.’

‘The Catholic Church does not teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are not meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace -- that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6)--only these good deeds work toward our salvation, and they do so only by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. These good works, offered to God by a soul in the state of grace (i.e., free of mortal sin, with the Blessed Trinity dwelling in the soul), are thereby supernaturally meritorious because they share in the work and in the merits of Christ. Such supernatural good works will not only be rewarded by God, but are necessary for salvation.’

‘St. Paul shows how the neglect of certain good works will send even a Christian believer to damnation: ``But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.'' (1 Tim. 5:8). Our Lord tells us that if the Master (God) returns and finds His servant sinning, rather than performing works of obedience, He ``shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.'' (Luke 12:46).

Furthermore, Catholics know they will be rewarded in Heaven for their good works. Our Lord Himself said: ``For the Son of man . . . will render to every man according to his works.'' (Matt. 16:27). ``And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.'' (Matt. 10:42). Catholics believe, following the Apostle Paul, that ``every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.'' (1 Cor. 3:8). ``For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints.'' (Heb. 6:10). ``I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming.'' (2 Tim. 4:7-8).’

“Justification by faith alone is a new doctrine; it was unheard of in the Christian community before the sixteenth century.”

 

Reading those threads you mentioned, DHK, it is obvious y'all can't even agree on what constitutes a 'false gospel' or not. Not even what tracts present a 'false gospel'. Isn't the gospel kinda important you evangelicals? You can't agree whether or not you can lose your salvation. Is that a minor doctrine, DHK??? You said your knowledge of Catholicism is far more extensive than mine? You didn't even know that the Catholic Church had married priests and it took me months to convince YOU!!! You didn't even know the real reason (and I suspect still don't) Catholics genuflect in church and you were a member for twenty years. There is so much you THINK you know about Catholicism BUT you are very deceived. You have admitted you NEVER read anything a Catholic apologist writes. You were exposed by Carson Weber who was only a student at Stubenville at the time. I started my interest in Catholicism by reading those threads where Carson thrashed you and I was a Baptist at the time!!!

 

BTW, I should have explained in post 202 in my first sentence that many Baptists & Catholics agree on Christology and I think that is HUGE! I would have said most Baptists but the American Baptists seem to be wavering a bit on the Deity of Christ, now aren't they???

I wanted to ask DHK, because I don't know where he stands on this, whether or not he considers Easy Believism to be a heresy taught by so many, many Baptists churches??? Is that a minor 'teaching'? A minor difference? Aren't people who are coaxed to pray "easy prayerism/believism" by their Baptists pastors not on a fast-track to Hell? Minor difference? Really??

 

Another one for DHK and you to consider regarding your spiritual state.

1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

That having been posted, I do urge you to discern with Him the works of catholicism as not of Him as it denies Him as your Saviour of having saved you for believing Jesus is the Son of God & that God raised Him from the dead. The Holy Spirit being in you is proof that you are His and thus saved. So if you believe 1 John 4:19, then believe 1 John 4:15 .

I am not a Calvinist, and some of TULIP can be reproved with scripture.

You cannot infer that as an indirect meaning of that passage.

I would go back to 1 John 4:19 in that we love God when He first loves us. Since love is a fruit of the Spirit, and my confidence is in Jesus to finish ( Philippians 1:6 ) as all fruits of righteousness are from Him ( Philippians 1:11 ) then that is where I apply my faith in as He will provide the love I need to even love my enemies.

It is, but it is not in our flesh to love our enemies. It is a knee jerk reaction to give an eye for an eye, which is why we need his help to love our enemies.

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

1 Peter 2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Reading all that... yeah, I need Jesus to help me love my enemies to get through that kind of tribulation.

 

I said "truly evangelical," not cultic. I suppose you don't the difference. In your mind Muslims are evangelistic simply because they recruit. Sorry, you have wrong definitions. You just don't get it, do you?

Like I said: "truly evangelistic." You haven't listed any. Mere words. They don't mean much unless they are corroborated by facts.

I suppose Hindus have a similar belief. They wash away their sins in the Ganges River. Then they go on from their. Mere superstition. Not much different than the RCC. Very similar in many ways.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves (or your own works),
It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast (in what? his own works)
--This verse makes it very clear that salvation is not of works of any kind. It is by grace through faith.

No good work can merit heaven, ever!

Paul is simply making a comparison when describing the person who abdicates his responsibility to his family. You allegorization of parable means nothing.

You have to make it to heaven first. One cannot get to heaven by works. If you think that you will never get to heaven. The way to Hell is paved with good intentions and many good works. Christ paved the way to heaven with his blood. He paid it all and will not accept the merit of any person.

You have to make to heaven first. You can't get to heaven on your own merit. If you think you can you are simply on your way to hell. Christ is the only way to heaven. You have checked John 14:6 haven't you? You do believe it, right? There are not works there, no room for works. Christ is the only way.

It is not new. Paul explained it carefully and patiently in the Bible.
Therefore being justified by FAITH we have peace with God.
No works; only faith.

 

It is obvious that you don't know what they are talking about. If you look at the threads carefully you will see that most of them are started by one specific individuals, and others have sort of ganged up on him.
Most of them are talking about a method of evangelism. Some of them don't like one particular method and derogatorily call it a false gospel. To you that is confusing.

Who in the Baptist forum thinks they can lose their salvation? Only those that post down here think that.

I doubt if they did in the days that I was a Catholic.

And now you are the one that is deceived.

 

What Baptists think they can lose their salvation? All the 'Freewillers' I know! Lots of 'em in my part of the country!

Married Priests? DHK said:
I doubt if they did in the days that I was a Catholic.



Married priesthood has ALWAYS existed in the Catholic Church. Get an education in Catholicism, DHK! You are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about! I doubt you will want to get schooled again and will drop this one like a hot-potato . . .

 

[
The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves (or your own works),
It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast (in what? his own works)
--This verse makes it very clear that salvation is not of works of any kind. It is by grace through faith.


No good work can merit heaven, ever!


Paul is simply making a comparison when describing the person who abdicates his responsibility to his family. You allegorization of parable means nothing.


You have to make it to heaven first. One cannot get to heaven by works. If you think that you will never get to heaven. The way to Hell is paved with good intentions and many good works. Christ paved the way to heaven with his blood. He paid it all and will not accept the merit of any person.

You have to make to heaven first. You can't get to heaven on your own merit. If you think you can you are simply on your way to hell. Christ is the only way to heaven. You have checked John 14:6 haven't you? You do believe it, right? There are not works there, no room for works. Christ is the only way.


It is not new. Paul explained it carefully and patiently in the Bible.
Therefore being justified by FAITH we have peace with God.
No works; only faith.[/QUOTE]

.

'What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother of sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also, faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.' Is that in your bible, DHK, or do you agree with Luther that it would have been better to leave that one out?

Eph 2:8-9 makes it clear we can't save ourselves, and the Church teaches that! Indeed, this passage says we ARE saved by GRACE through FAITH and that is true. What this passage does NOT say is faith ALONE. You can't just add meaning to a verse that isn't there. This passage also says we are not saved OF ourselves. Also true... We cannot save ourselves by our works or otherwise. This passage tells us that our works cannot save us by our own merit.

This passage also has to be looked at in light of James 2:24 "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." You can't just throw out James or pass it off as having another meaning. This is non-sensical.

If we are saved by anything ALONE, it is God's GRACE. Not our faith.

Also, look at 1 Cor 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

Faith alone? NO!

1 Cor 13:13 "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Faith is the greatest? NO!

Mt 19:16-17 "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Faith alone? I don't think so!

Mt 7:21 ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Faith alone? NO!

All these passages clearly state that we have to DO something. Faith is not enough. We must love, we must obey, we must keep the commandments. All these are in addition to faith!

James tells us that we cannot separate them. Faith produces good works. Without them, we don't have a saving faith. There is simply no way around it. They are inseparable! Faith without WORKS is dead. By saying "faith alone" you're leaving out the works and that only leaves a dead faith!


Now here comes 'Baptist Spin'

 

You know and I know that "a married priesthood" is not the norm. It is a faction, a minority, almost like a sect. When one enters into the priesthood, celibacy is required. You know that; I know that. It has been that way for centuries. To point to some obscure sect of the RCC for your defense is really weak, and hardly worth debatable. It is a tactic to gain points in the public forum and that is all. Everyone reading this post knows that celibacy is required of the priesthood in the RCC. We are not speaking of exception clauses here; we are speaking of the norm.

 

No it is not non-sensical. The Bible was written to Christians not Catholics or Hindus.
You have to make it into heaven before good works merit anything.
If you are still a Hindu or a Catholic your works are as filthy rags (Isa.64:6)

Again, that is written to believers, not to Hindus and Catholics.
You must be a believer first. The Bible was written to the saved, not the unsaved.

Of course salvation is faith alone.
Are you works more precious than the blood of Christ?
When Christ cried "It is finished," was it because you had accomplished your work as well?

The Bible says that Jesus is the way, not works. The scripture you quote is written to those who are saved, not unsaved: not the Hndus and the Catholics.
You must be able to enter into heaven before works mean anything at all. Otherwise they are just filthy rags. (Isa.64:6) God doesn't want them. He just throws them out. They are filth to him.

 

"He paid it all and will not accept the merit of any person." --DHK

Let us Catholics claim credit for salvation first instead of you doing it for us and then accusing us not crediting God.

If some guy claims I worship Mary, what I can do after the 50th time being accused so? I say no.

If you were to tell me everything the Catholic Church is, I wouldn't agree with THAT Catholic Church either.

You guys make wonderful points against the STRAWMAN-catholic church.

But I don't have to LIE about others peoples position of putting the idolatry SALVATION FIRST above God.

Love God is the commandment, #1 good work. And the first thing on SELFISH minded person , Loving God isn't going to do anything for me, its not going to give me salvation.

We prioritize God first. I see folks here going through all this scripture using the bible as a protection against God.
I find that insulting. You check the bible to make sure you got God right. When you should have checked with GOD to make sure you got the bible right.

Let me give you example of this glaring flaw:

When God communicates his choice method regardless of what it is has no place being judged by human sense of reliability.

If God wants to talk to me via smoke signals, telephone call, E-mail, that's his prerogative I got no place to say well the E-mail is more important the phone call or the phone call is more reliable then smoke signals.

I can have two shacks outside one made of IRON and other of GLASS. A hail storm is coming. God tells us get in the glass shack. What do we do? Does my sense of reliability override God, my sense of qualifications? I get in the glass shack.

Or if God wants to slay a giant with a child, Lord a machine gun is better.....

I'm not going to question God's choice.

Jesus sends an E-mail sometimes these things have attachments and videos. In the E-mail he commands me to forward it to others. A NEWSPAPER decides to record the event.
And now some guy who never got the email says "I Got the email right here in the newspaper" He doesn't have the Email at best he has the words. Same fellah gets upset I forward the Email as I was commanded by Jesus and then he tells me he has to check the NEWSPAPER to verify the E-mail.

Jesus PERSONALLY wrote scripture. But his grammar was humble. His ink was wine, his paper was bread, his grammar was PEOPLE. Its not the IRON SHACK, machine gun, ink and paper YOU CHOSE. Its the GLASS SHACK, CHILD, HE CHOSE.

What I'm talking about is COMMUNION, the EUCHARIST. Which is done for no biblical reason but by the on going command direct from Jesus Christ.

The minute you have to crack open a bible to go over GOD's head your already outside the bounds of his command of "DO THIS". You guys are tying to get the E-MAIL from the newspaper and its not working.

This SCRIPTURE which Jesus personally wrote can teach you more Christianity then every bible put together. But you are too PROUD to accept God's choice over your sense of reliability.

 

Small sects? IFB is a sect, DHK, Eastern Cathollics number In the millions, DHK. Not the norm, maybe not in the Latin Rite although Anglicans Use Catholic Christians are among them too. BTW, the Mar Thoma of the Syro-Malabar Rite actually dates back to St. Thomas. 'The Church is one of the Saint Thomas Christian churches centered in Kerala, India, which trace their origin to the evangelism of Saint Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century. It is one of two Saint Thomas Christian churches in the Catholic communion, the other being the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malankara_Catholic_Church How far back does your church date, DHK? I will go by the faith that an Apostle brought as a missionary to India over one hand-crafted by a reformer.

Alexandrian liturgical tradition; 2 liturgical rites

• Coptic Rite
• Ethiopic Rite

Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition; 3 liturgical rites

• Maronite Rite
• (West) Syrian Rite
• Malankara Rite

Armenian Rite; 1 liturgical rite

• Armenian Rite

East Syrian or Chaldean or Syro-Oriental liturgical tradition; 2 liturgical rites

• Chaldean Rite
• Syro-Malabar Rite

Byzantine (Constantinopolitan or Constantinian) liturgical tradition; 1 liturgical rite

• Byzantine Rite

Now Here are the Western Rite churches. Notice not all rites are Latin.
Latin (Western) liturgical rites

• Roman Rite, whose historical forms are usually classified as follows
  • Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms)
  • Tridentine Mass
  • Mass of Paul VI (1970–present)
  • Anglican Use (restricted to formerly Anglican congregations, notably in Personal Ordinariates)
• Ambrosian Rite (Milan, Italy and neighbouring areas)
• Mozarabic Rite (Toledo and Salamanca, Spain)
• Rite of Braga (Braga, Portugal)

The Latin Rite IS much larger than all the Eastern Catholic Churches combined BUT, DHK, you once claimed that married Catholic priests were not allowed in the Catholic Church, PERIOD When I pointed out to you that Eastern Catholics would find that an odd statement. You told me that the Eastern Catholics have not been part of the RCC since 1054 and I OBVIOUSLY knew nothing about what I was talking again. It took me the better part of a month to explain to you the difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics. Not sure you really ever understood because you finally just blew it all off. 'Doesn't really matter, they are all Apostates' or something to that effect.

 

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Read the above scripture. No one can take credit for salvation; no one.
Jesus paid it all. The very statement you made: "Let us take credit for salvation," is the very indication and reason why I say Catholics are on their way to hell. Christ is the only way to heaven. No Catholic or any other person can get their any other way but through Christ and Him alone.

I know. I used to stand there, in your shoes. I denied it too, until I saw it from the point of view of the Bible. Of course I would never admit to it. But you must come and look at it from the pages of the Bible, not from the eyes of the Catholic.
Tell me, when a Hindu worships at the altar of one of its gods (like Vishnu), is he worshiping the actual wooden idol, or the spirit (the god) that the idol represents? He is not praying to the wooden idol. He knows better than that. He is praying to the god that it represents, just as you would pray to the spirit of Mary that the image represents. It is the same thing. It is a transgression of the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
--Mary is a god. You pray to her. You treat her like a god.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
--You make graven images of Mary and other "saints." They are likenesses of her and of others, and of Christ Himself. That is idolatry.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
--And like the Hindu you bow down and worship before them, especially during "the stations of the cross."

I can quote the Catechism to you. Isn't that authoritative enough?

IMO, that is an admission that you are not saved. Biblical Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. He died for you, made you the object of his love, paid the penalty of your sin with his blood, and desires you to make Him, Christ, as the Lord of your life.
Without salvation, one is condemned to an eternity in Hell forever. That being the case, God is not interested in his love, for you have already spurned the love of God. You have insulted him, rejected him, etc. The person that has so rejected Christ's offer of love does not love God and cannot even pretend to love God. He does it out of his own selfishness, perhaps to make him look good in his community, or for some other reason. But God won't accept that kind of love for that person has rejected God's love.

If you don't know God you can't love God.

The only way you can know "if you got God right" is through the Scriptures. God has revealed himself to us through the Scriptures. It is our only authority and guide during this time.
In the first century Christ lived, and the Apostles lived. By the end of the first century, the Bible was completed, and we have had the Bible since then for our authority.

If not for the Bible:
The Mormons have their Book of Mormon.
The Catholics have their Catechism.
The J.W.'s have the writings of Charles Taze Russell.
The SDA have the writings of Ellen G. White. and so on.
--We go by the Bible alone. It alone is our only authority. It alone is inspired. Other works are not.

But he doesn't. He communicates to us through His Word. That is what he has promised. He is not a liar. He keeps His Word.

You no doubt use your common sense. God doesn't speak to you audibly any longer.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--According to verse one, God spoke in various ways in OT times through the prophets. If you were a prophet of the OT, then perhaps I could believe you.
But according to verse two, "in these last days (now), he speaks to us through His Son (which is through the Bible alone.

-quote]Or if God wants to slay a giant with a child, Lord a machine gun is better.....

I'm not going to question God's choice.

Jesus sends an E-mail sometimes these things have attachments and videos. In the E-mail he commands me to forward it to others. A NEWSPAPER decides to record the event.
And now some guy who never got the email says "I Got the email right here in the newspaper" He doesn't have the Email at best he has the words. Same fellah gets upset I forward the Email as I was commanded by Jesus and then he tells me he has to check the NEWSPAPER to verify the E-mail.[/quote]
With all the unsaved:
Jesus has no internet, he doesn't use the print media, he doesn't send emails, his phone is always busy.
Sin separates the sinner from God. He will not listen to you as long as you are not reconciled to Him via His Son Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Was it? He also wrote:
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
--Because one who is born into this world has the devil as his father, Jesus said to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." You need to be born into God's family.

It does no good for those who know not Christ.
And the RCC view of transubstantiation is pure superstition.

I have given you scripture. I trust you will carefully consider it. The RCC trusts in its Catechism, not in the scriptures at all. It has fallible documents written by fallible men. I stand on an infallible book, a book inspired by God.

 

Like I said, for those living in North America, sects.
They aren't here except in small numbers.
Did you want to talk about the pygmies in Africa too.