Catholic Question: Can One Find Salvation Without the Sacraments?

A thorough study of 1Cor.13:8:13 will demonstrate that Word of God was completed by the first century. No revelation was needed after that. Spiritual gifts ceased after that. Why? The perfect word of God had come. Revelation was complete. There is no new revelation today. Those who claim new revelation are false prophets.
DHK[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]Then stop debating, DHK. Simply say, "Read your Bible, Grant," and go about your business. Based on your words, you have no right to add to the Word of God with your preaching, for you could say nothing that is not already evident in Scriptures, and thus, your words are futile, and quite frankly, perverse, for they take me away from God's Word in the Scriptures!
[/QB][/QUOTE]

Is this a simple admission that you refuse to study this passage out for yourself and see what it says? Are you afraid that it may say what I have already stated?
DHK

 

I have to ask...are you associating "Lucifer" with Satan? If so, that is never stated in the Scriptures. The "morning star" is a reference to the king of Babylon, and the Vulgate version read "Lucifer," and this was used as a REFERENCE to Satan by the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, thus, the Church's tradition, and not Scripture.

And again, you read "hold" and mean "take." You can't do that, for that provides to totally different meanings. The word used is "hold," so do not deviate in your interepretation of what it means.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

You have never once conceded to a point I have made, and you fully believe that you contain the Truths made present in Scripture, and that you are not wrong in any of your interpretations.

You can fancy up the words all you like, but you believe that you contain the Truth, and a better truth than I. You don't need the name "Pope" or use the adjective "infallible" to see the same characteristics embodied in your approach to every discussion.

You are right, and all who oppose you are wrong.

God bless,

Grant

 

Tuor,

One who is Catholic accepts the teaching authority of the Pope and the Magesterium, so to be in defiance of the Pope is to cease to be Catholic. For if we can freely disagree with defined doctrines, then what faith do we have? If we have not trust, what do we have? For if the Church is wrong on this doctrine, how can we know that she is right in other doctrines?

Christ made His Church infallible so that our faith would not change directions like every whim of the breeze, but would remain firm like a rock.

God bless,

Grant

 

A thorough study of 1Cor.13:8:13 will demonstrate that Word of God was completed by the first century. No revelation was needed after that. Spiritual gifts ceased after that. Why? The perfect word of God had come. Revelation was complete. There is no new revelation today. Those who claim new revelation are false prophets.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Then stop debating, DHK. Simply say, "Read your Bible, Grant," and go about your business. Based on your words, you have no right to add to the Word of God with your preaching, for you could say nothing that is not already evident in Scriptures, and thus, your words are futile, and quite frankly, perverse, for they take me away from God's Word in the Scriptures!
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Is this a simple admission that you refuse to study this passage out for yourself and see what it says? Are you afraid that it may say what I have already stated?
DHK[/QB][/QUOTE]

DHK,

This is why you are impossible to properly debate with. I said no such thing, and you used my words to further attack me on a plain that is not even congruent with my words. When did I refuse to read the passages? The truth of the matter is that I did not, and you merely pulled this out to attack me as a person.

The verses are stating that these gifts are subordinate to love, which is at the height of all these gifts, of course must be present, and in and of itself never fails. It is not speaking of the closing of the revelation in the sense that you mean it.

God bless,

Grant

 

No, and I never stated as such, or anything close to that. Are you looking for every negative aspect in my words?

The Catholic Church IS the Church established by Christ, and those outside of it yet still with ties (faith and trust in Jesus Christ and Baptism in Christ) are not excluded, for most are there out of ignorance (and that is not a derogatory term) or because they were simply raised in Christian traditions that were formed out of schism for which they are not personally responsible.

Tuor, you are on the Path to God, or you would not be asking questions.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

The fact of the matter, though, is that the word "Lucifer" is found in the Vulgate, which I might add, had the deuterocanonical books you reject. And, you say so yourself that it is only figurative, and you're relying on 2,000 years of Church history and tradition that makes this connection such an easy one for you. Were it not for the Tradition of the Church, this typography would not be so apparent.

God bless,

Grant

 

Then it is the Baptists' duty to provide from Scripture where such an amazing doctrine is contained. No Baptist has ever provided this verse. Why not? Because it is the Baptists' interpretation of Scripture that leads them to this conclusion, for the doctrine of making Scriptures the final authority is not contained in the Scriptures, except implicitly. Therefore, one must apply interpretation. And for you to argue with me about it, you are claiming a superior interpretation.

So, are we going to keep circling this issue, or can you provide me with a verse, with none of your DHK-explanation, that will PROVE DEFINITIVELY that the Word of God contained in Scriptures is the final authority on all matters of faith and morals?

God bless,

Grant

[ November 11, 2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

Quote by DHK
The difference between me and the pope, or me and the magesterium is that I don't claim to speak for an entire denomination or religion. I don't claim infallibility. I admit mistakes, when I am wrong, and the possibility of being wrong. The Catholic Church does not.

2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Roman Catholic Church claims its own private interpretation. No one has the correct interpretation except through the magesterium. That is what is meant by "private interpretation." I don't claim that at all. But the Catholic Church has a private interpretation of the Scriptures hands down.
DHK[/QB][/QUOTE]

DHK,
To help you understand more clearly, perhaps this will help.

http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathansr.html#ans7

Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is a human being, with a finite human intellect, like the rest of us? What is the scriptural basis for this belief?

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty--the Faith of Jesus Christ. In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, "from the Chair" of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation -- only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to "define," some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to "hear the church" (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth -- without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible. For a complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years -- sometimes hundreds of years -- of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20).

 

DHK,

Assumptions don't get you very far.

The Catholic Church has, does, and always will preach a closed revelation. Nothing that the Catholic Church has defined is inconsistent to the Revelation of God already made present, nor is it new.

Argue until you're blue in the face; it won't change the truth of the matter. Revelation is closed, but that doesn't mean we knew and understood everything that was taught while revelation was active. It has taken centuries to work out misconceptions about what is said in God's Word, and even took several centuries to be sure of what was indeed God's Word and what was not. The Word is eternal, but our understanding of it is finite. This is why it takes time, prayer, and careful study to discern what God states in His Word. It is rarely immediately evident. You, DHK, have the benefit of 2,000 years of study and work to help you connect the dots; therefore, any assertion you make that things are clear in the Bible are false in the sense that they have always been clear. They have NOT always been clear. To make such an accusation is preposterous and unfounded.

I reassert: The Catholic Church has introduced no doctrine that has not been present in the Church since the close of Revelation. It has merely, at different points in history, finally reached a conclusion as to what God's Word fully intended, and when this was known without doubt, it was proclaimed as Truth to all believers. It would be wrong to preach something as fully truth if the universal Church was not positive that this is what God really intended in His Word.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

You just failed. You presented verses, and then provided me with a huge paragraph of explanation.

Please try again. Reply with only Scripture, for a belief that is of this magnitude (it is the main line that seperates our denominations in Christ) should be explicit enough that it requires no extra interpretation. Interpretation, you said, can fail.

I want the Word of God, without DHK's interpretation, showing me that I need nothing beyond Scripture to obtain all of the Truth that God wishes me and all of humanity to know.

God bless,

Grant

 

That is not true. It has an open revelation. It is open in two very distinct senses. It is open in the sense that you have added to the revelation of God various Marian doctrines that were never taught in the Word of God, neither directly nor by the Apostles, and cannot be proved outside of your own Tradition. There are many other doctrines that you hold to as well that are wholly unbiblical. They are man-made inventions.

In a second sense you have an open revelation with the many Catholic who have received revelation through apparitions. Even Pope John Paul heard Mary speak to him at one time did he not? That is a source of revelation, demonic, but a source of revelation. The only revelation that we have is in the Word of God. Carson belongs to a Charismatic affiliation. He believes that tongues are for today. Ask him. Tongues are a source of revelation. The only revelation that we have is from God's Word.
DHK

[ November 11, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

After you look up all 415 references that state "Thus saith the Lord," you should be convinced.
DHK

[ November 11, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

I might as well add, although I still want this verse from you without interpretation....

...that these do not prove what you say they do. First, both are making reference to the Old Testament. The New Testament fulfills the Old, and therefore, nothing in the New Testament can contradict the Old, for the Old points to the New. The Bereans were reading the Old Testament books to see if Paul's teachings on Christ fullfilled the prophecies and were in line with the Old Testament. They weren't reading the New Testament.

Further, it can be demonstrated, whether you accept it or not, that Catholic beliefs are not contrary to Scripture.

This argument is futile, and it does not prove what you say it does. As for "Thus saith the Lord," I'm not in disagreement that it is in reference to the Word of God, but the Word of God is not limited to the Scriptures. Remember, that's what you have to prove.

God bless,

Grant