Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

I’m not a Catholic apologist, and I’m not going to be your sacrificial lamb to try and ridicule and degrade, but by all means PM me and I will gladly supply you with links to many, many popular Catholic apologist message boards and you can debate until your blue in the face. That’s only if you’re truly up for the challenge my friend…

I have been a lurker on this board for more than 5 years and any Catholic that posts on here is banned within weeks, so you’ll find no Catholics to debate and if so, it usually doesn’t last long before they are banned. What I’ve found is that Baptist aren’t tolerant of other denominations in debating especially when they are being taken to the wood shed…

I look forward to your PM. I’d love to see you or ascund debate some real Catholic apologists. Maybe you guys could team-up? </font>[/QUOTE]Your "kind gesture" has already been done! I have posted at the prompting of others at a Catholic board, and no one there either was able to refute the Word of God! I was finally asked not to post anymore in the debate forum so I moved on(as I only posted there as I had been "Kindly" invited as you have done)

God has given you your OWN mind and your OWN spirit...Do not rely on the words of others to lead you by the nose! If your covictions are based on the word of God why hide them, what do you have to fear? It all boils down to this...do you want to be a follower of men or a follower of Christ?

God Bless
Tyler

 

Debate--is probably the wrong word.

To debate religion, both sides must agree to a common authority as a final authority. This cannot be accomplished if both sides cannot agree to "sola scriptura". If the traditions of men are included as authoritative, there is no common ground for debate. It is an impasse.

It is not an excuse for rudeness and intolerance.

"Bless you" is still the appropriate response to those who despitefully use people. There is a scriptural way to show the lost they are bound for hell--and have them give thanks for having been shown the light.

"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do", Jesus, as He was giving His life for Sin, at a place called Golgotha, outside Jerusalem, circa 33 A.D.

Preach the Word, let God do the drawing, the Holy Spirit the convicting and Jesus the saving--it works everytime.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I agree, however, don't always believe that when a Catholic says they are born again, it means they are washed in the blood. Catecism teaches that being born again is being washed in the water of baptism.

And on your point about their doctrine: Yes, catecism is strongly backed by scripture. Unfortunately it is not the same interpretation as most Baptists. I was also taught that their beliefs were not found anywhere in the Bible. It's not good to be brought up in ignorance of other religions.

Good post btw.

 

Quote by Kubel:

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism

401. Why did Christ establish the Church?
Christ established the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation.

402. How is the Church the universal sacrament of salvation?
The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation as the divinely instituted means of conferring grace on all the members of the human family.

403. How does the Church communicate divine grace to mankind?
The Church communicates grace to mankind by her teaching of revealed truth, her celebration of Mass and administration of the sacraments, her prayers and the practice of virtue by her members, and her guidance and government of the faithful according to the will of God.

412. Is the Church necessary for salvation?
Yes, the Church is necessary for salvation. Christ himself declared that no one can be saved except through faith and baptism.

413. For whom is there no salvation outside the Church?
There is no salvation for those who, though incorporated into the Church by baptism, fail to persevere in sanctifying grace and die in the state of mortal sin. Those also are not saved who realize what they are doing but refuse to be baptized and accept the Church’s means of salvation.

461. What does the Catholic Church believe about the forgiveness of sins?
She believes it is God’s will that no one is forgiven except through the merits of Jesus Christ, and that these merits are uniquely channeled through the Church he founded. Consequently, even as the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, she is also the universal sacrament of reconciliation.

462. How does the Church communicate the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners?
The Church communicates Christ’s mercy to sinners through the Mass and the sacraments, and all the prayers and good works of the faithful.

463. What is the Church’s role in the reconciliation of sinners to God?
The Church reconciles sinners to God mainly by her exercise of God’s mercy, through the sacraments which he instituted.

1119. Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?
According to the way God has willed that we be saved, the sacraments are necessary for salvation (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden: Image, 1981).

If you can prove these points(doctrines) using scripture, I'm going back to the RCC!

Only Christ Saves!

 

Quote by riverm:

Good Grief!! And your purpose for doing so??

There's more to some, than "meets the eye"...

Only Christ Saves!

 

Good Grief!! And your purpose for doing so??

There's more to some, than "meets the eye"...

Only Christ Saves! </font>[/QUOTE]There’s tons of message boards that I read, college sports, politics, religion. Some I post to, some I just sit back and shake my head and laugh at.

 

Board Lurking--is that a clandestine operation?

Nice to know we have a qualified Board Lurker.

Now that we have had confession, what next? We all have skeletons in our closets.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism

401. Why did Christ establish the Church?
Christ established the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation.

402. How is the Church the universal sacrament of salvation?
The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation as the divinely instituted means of conferring grace on all the members of the human family.

403. How does the Church communicate divine grace to mankind?
The Church communicates grace to mankind by her teaching of revealed truth, her celebration of Mass and administration of the sacraments, her prayers and the practice of virtue by her members, and her guidance and government of the faithful according to the will of God.

412. Is the Church necessary for salvation?
Yes, the Church is necessary for salvation. Christ himself declared that no one can be saved except through faith and baptism.

413. For whom is there no salvation outside the Church?
There is no salvation for those who, though incorporated into the Church by baptism, fail to persevere in sanctifying grace and die in the state of mortal sin. Those also are not saved who realize what they are doing but refuse to be baptized and accept the Church’s means of salvation.

461. What does the Catholic Church believe about the forgiveness of sins?
She believes it is God’s will that no one is forgiven except through the merits of Jesus Christ, and that these merits are uniquely channeled through the Church he founded. Consequently, even as the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, she is also the universal sacrament of reconciliation.

462. How does the Church communicate the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners?
The Church communicates Christ’s mercy to sinners through the Mass and the sacraments, and all the prayers and good works of the faithful.

463. What is the Church’s role in the reconciliation of sinners to God?
The Church reconciles sinners to God mainly by her exercise of God’s mercy, through the sacraments which he instituted.

1119. Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?
According to the way God has willed that we be saved, the sacraments are necessary for salvation (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden: Image, 1981).

If you can prove these points(doctrines) using scripture, I'm going back to the RCC!

Only Christ Saves! </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Kubel, there’s plenty of scripture to back your points, but the question is if they are in line with your interpretation.

BTW, wouldn’t it be more fruitful for you to ask these to Catholics instead of arguing and drawing Baptists into a deep theological mind trap. What good is that?

 

By the grace of God I am finally breaking the fundamentalist hold that I’ve been in for the better part of my life. Here’s what I concluded:

I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, not may ordinary men or women do. Therefore, I have to rely on how men interpret the words of Christ. Take John 6 for a prime example, a straightforward reading of John 6 and one would agree with the Catholic Mass in relation to the elements.

I’ve always been taught that the “Whore” mentioned in Revelation is the RCC, even though scripture never mentions this and every commentary I have on Revelation doesn’t mention the RCC as the “Whore”, but David Hunt believes this to be true so It must be. Since most, not all, fundamentalist are little individual popes anyway.

How can I ask the Holy Spirit to lead me in truth, when 1500 other denominations are asking the Holy Spirit the same thing and all coming to different interpretations of scripture?

I don’t consider the RCC cultic or non-Christian. They believe in the Trinity, they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus the Son of God, that He was crucified for the sins of the world and that God resurrected Him on the third day and that He will return again to judge.

There are other doctrinal issues that I disagree with, heck Baptists even disagree among themselves on many, many theological issues. But again, it’s all about interpretation. Who's right, who's wrong and how do we know?

 

Hey riverm

There truly is hot debate as to what is the core of evangelicalism. I noted that you mentioned belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Jesus' crucification/resurrection.

These are all key points indeed. However, I hold that the core of evangelicalism is the presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For me, the core of the gospel is these steps:
1. Know that I am a condemned sinner.
2. Know that Jesus died for my sins.
3. Trust in His work of redemption/atonement.

Hence, when someone adds another step:
4. Obey His commands.
this puts them into the self-righteous camp outside of evangelicalism. Other would simply say that it is heresy. I agree.

Lloyd

 

Now I understand why you have so many problems understanding justification. You have mixed the Law and the Gospel. The Law is how you know that you are a sinner not the Gospel. The Gospel is the promise that you no longer stand condemned b/c Christ died and rose again.

 

Hey Chemnitz

There is no requirement to obey the law in those steps. One does not believe in Jesus until they believe in the sufficiency of His Cross to save them. Jesus came to save sinners - not those who think they are well.

The promise of eternal life through faith is wasted upon those who don't think they need it!

Wake up!
Lloyd

 

I think you need to reread my post.

 

Hey Chemnitz

I can return the favor. There was nothing in those three steps that smack of legalistic law keeping.

Your post was a typical hurry to write something - anything - even if wrong in an inordinate attempt to appear smart or correct.

What you wind up doing is making ungrounded accusations and stir up strife.

Slow down. Read the posts.
Lloyd

 

Your very first step of the Gospel is to know you are a sinner. There is nothing in the Gospel that shows that you are a sinner. Yes, the Gospel is for sinners but the Gospel does not show that you are sinner. If you hadn't put "know that I am sinner" under a Gospel heading I wouldn't have said anything, but you did.

On top of that your very grammar has confused the two. Your verbs have all placed you in the driver seat not God. The Gospel is about what God did, not you. If you had said "Jesus paid the price I could never hope to pay" or something to that effect, I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't you put under Gospel a whole bunch of things you do i.e. "I know..., I know..., I trust..."

I never accused you of legalism, I only accused you of mixing Law and Gospel.

 

Greetings Chemnitz

I think your accusation of mixing Law and Gospel are in error. Luther himself noted that the Law must precede the gospel so that sinners know they are sinners.

The verbs reflect the human side that requires the LOOK of faith (John 3:12-17) to Jesus. LOOKING to Jesus is my requirement. What other verbs can convey this?

What you overlook is that the total Gospel is by God's grace through faith in Christ. If you had but gone back and read how the post began, you would have seen that it was concerned with the gospel presentation. The second step of knowing that Christ died on the Cross is more than sufficient to detail God's activity in preparing for the volitional decision to believe in Jesus.

Again, it appears that you are not willing to read the posts to understand context but instead scurry to write anything - even if wrong.

Slow down. Read the posts!
Lloyd

 

But Luther would not have placed a Law statement (know I am a sinner) under a Gospel heading as you did. A proper distinction of the Law and Gospel must be maintained if the Gospel is to be heard lest you cause confusion and with your statement you cause confusion.

If your post was about presenting the Gospel, then you should have been even more careful about using verbs that do not place you in the driver's seat. The Gospel is about what God does for you, which includes creating faith and belief" not about requirements that you have to fulfill.

No, will bound and chained with the yoke of sin could ever decide to believe in Jesus.

 

Hey Chemnitz

You confuse the mixing of Law and Gospel as if justification is some sort of requirement from each of them.

Law is God's righteous demand for perfection. Gospel is God's free gift of righteousness in Christ. Any apparent tension between the law and gospel is resolved in their destruction. Lutheran theology uses the Latin phrase simul iustus et peccator to express this existential dilemma.

Even the mature Christian is yet a sinner. This is why Paul cried "Who will deliever me from this body of death." The law and gospel are not some chronological sequence but the knowledge that the child of God is simultaneously declared to be a saint through faith while they are yet a sinner.


The gospel message for sinners first uses the Law to enhance the awareness of lostness. Then comes the Gospel.

The gospel message for believers is the Gospel followed by the Law.


You are wrong to think either (1) the law is separate from the gospel or (2) the law mixes with the gospel. The Law and Gospel work in tandem demanding and fulfilling perfect righteousness through Christ.

Homiletics must reflect the tension by the God who condemns and redeems the Christian at the same time. The hearer must never be allowed to fall back on the laurels of his own morality or spiritual accomplishments.

The law and the gospel should be seen as the key to man’s existential self-dilemma in understanding himself and his relationship to God. If the universal atonement means anything, it means that God had satisfied all of the law’s requirements, its demands and penalties, in the person of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. The law no longer can describe how God views man. The gospel can never be nullified. The former agenda of penalty is not reinstated. This has been satisfied once and for all.

Those who reject the gospel have not failed to fulfill a requirement, that would make the gospel only another law, they have rejected what God has freely done. Sinners are accepted by Christ. Those who reject him are not.

You must be careful when you make accusations of "mixing" law and gospel. The Bible already presents them in tandem.

You must carefully articulate this relationship and avoid either of the two extremes mentioned above!
Lloyd

 

You write so beautifully but at the same time you write under the Gospel, "know that I am a sinner" along with many things that you do. You may actually believe that there is nothing you can do, but in the IP I commented on, your grammar and your steps say otherwise.

 

He thinks that the important subtle difference is purgatory. Saved but soiled sinners need to spend some time washing themselves before they are purified enuf to enter into heaven.

So he supports one errant idea (that we can be perfect from within) with a second fantasy (purgatory).

At every turn when confronted with the truth ptlforever chooses to be cling to his error and become personally insulted rather than cling to Christ.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]What are you talking about? Why are you putting words in my mouth? I said nothing about purgatory. I have no idea why you think I am taking this personally. All I said is you were wrong, which you are, and stated the beleifs of the CC. Stop reading into things.