As I said before, Catholics arent Christians

[Linda64]

Originally posted by Brice:
Linda,

With all due respect, you can't put something out there and then somebody else tries to put it in context and you refuse to read it. It's like reading half a book and then forming your own ending to suit your position. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your stance, more so your decision to toss something out there and then when challenged, you refuse to entertain the context of your original argument.

What Matt posted puts the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent in the context of the Lutheran point of view. The Canons and Decrees were around long before the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was written. As a matter of fact, I did look at the website of that document--all it is the Lutheran's declaration that they will "dialogue" with the RCC--it is simply an "ecumenical" document. The Lutherans are "coming home" to the "Mother Church". This document does NOT change the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. They are attempting to "bridge" their differences.

The context of my original argument? I wasn't arguing--I was simply asking if anyone had read the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. This is the document on which the RCC stands, as well as Vatican II and the Catechisms of the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholic.net/baltimore_catechism/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=14

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html

These are all public so anybody can see them.

I agree with the OP--Catholics are not Christians.

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Interpreted by whom?

If you mean the Bible--the Holy Spirit interprets--and as saved, born again believers, we all have the Holy Spirit indwelling us. We don't need a "priest" or someone from the "hierarchy" or "magisterium" of the Catholic or Lutheran church do interpret the Scriptures for us.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[Matt Black]

Then how come all saved, born again believers disagree about what the Bible means? Sounds to me like the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Then how come all saved, born again believers disagree about what the Bible means? Sounds to me like the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...

Could explain why there’s some 100,000 plus Christian denominations. All claiming their interpretation is right, especially the Johnny come lately IFB.

 

[Shiloh]

You are comparing apples to base balls. The person who gets "saved" by Grace through Faith in the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ will experience a change in their life. Whether they be Catholic or Baptist. Please don't take some of the arguments by the people on this board to be the "Truth". This is the most liberal messed up mess you will ever see. If there is no authority (Bible) they will exhibit just what you read on this board. I believe if a Catholic gets "saved" they will leave the Catholic church and find a church that will teach the truth. I also believe when a Baptist gets "saved" they too will find a church that teaches the truth. It is obvious to me that many on this board are professors only and not possessors. Salvation does not come through the church it comes through Christ John 14:6.

 

[Matt Black]

I ask again - the Bible as interpreted by whom? You? Me? Linda?

An example from literary criticism (a not unconnected analogy).

Let's take a popular work of non fiction with an important historical component, (just like the Bible). How about:- "The Origins of the Second World War" ... a popular revisionist account by A.J.P. Taylor that had great impact in its day.

If someone came along and said ... "all you need is Taylor to understand the Second World War" then that claim would be dismissed quite easily. Many sources, a dialogue of interpretations ... that makes for good history.

If someone were to stick with Taylor because it was considered to be the best (but not only) avilable commentary, (like the Bible perhaps), then you would still need to engage with the author, his influences, his witnesses etc ... in other words, the "A.J.P. Taylor Tradition."

Why should the Bible be any different in the sense that its divine inspiration is mediated by human authors, witnesses and sources? In other words, the Church.

We could then argue whether the papacy and the magisterium is the way to go or Orthodoxy's Holy Tradition or the Magisterial Reformers' engaging with the Early Church Fathers. What I am certain is not the way to go is the individual believer picking up his Gideon Bible in the hotel bedroom and suddenly finding out what it's all about! The better Protestant traditions, especially those of the Magisterial Reformation insist (quite rightly) that biblical study is a community thing, both spacially and temporally.

Where these still differ with Catholics and Orthodox is the belief that this community has a historical manifestation in the Christian Church which has neither lost it's memory or common life when it comes to the book(s) that it itself has formerly penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and by attending to the Word-made-flesh.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] I ask again - the Bible as interpreted by whom? You? Me? Linda?

If you are really born again by Water and Holy Spirit, you don't find much difficulty in discerning which interpretation is correct.

If you don't believe that all of your sins were forgiven already and there is no need to ask God to forgive your sins, then you deny that Blood of Jesus paid all the price for your sins.
Such reveals your unbelief.

 

[Eliyahu]

Dear Matt, Do you think the interpretation by these people acceptable as truth?

Read this:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] I ask again - the Bible as interpreted by whom? You? Me? Linda?

If you are really born again by Water and Holy Spirit, you don't find much difficulty in discerning which interpretation is correct.

Yeah, that's what they all say

If you don't believe that all of your sins were forgiven already...

I do

... and there is no need to ask God to forgive your sins...

Ah, here's where you and I differ; I consider it good manners befitting the relationship I have with the Lord at the very least to ask His forgiveness when I've upset Him

... then you deny that Blood of Jesus paid all the price for your sins.
Such reveals your unbelief.

As with the OP author, go play with some traffic and try and be less bigotted, arrogant and judgmental

 

[Bro. James]

Whenever two or more disagree, they cannot all be right; they could all be wrong. How does one decide: who is right? Certainly, God is not the author of all this confusion.

The standard or authority for the issue at hand is The Word of God and that only. If we add the traditions and other commandments of men for the past 6,000 years, we have a real dilemma: man is depraved and subject to serious error, willingly or unwillingly. We have the infallible Word, written; we also have the Word made Flesh, who dwelt among us. We also crucified Him.

When one compares the plain teaching of the Scripture to the religious practices of those called Christian in the past 2,000 years, one has to be astounded at the gross divergence/perversion of the doctrines. We have salvation and the maintenence thereof by works of men beginning with the sprinkling of infants. We have a memorial supper changed into a magical/pagan ritual with a literal changing of physical states of bread and wine into flesh and blood by the recitation of words by a man duly dubbed to do so.

This whole issue is still about: by whose authority do you do these things?

If the holy see has scriptural authority, all others are without authority. If the holy see is without biblical authority, her daughters are without authority for the same reason. This is a real dilemma for those "reformed". How does one reform something which never existed?

Then there is the Bride, the Lamb's wife. She is unblemished and with the authority given in Mt. 16 and 28. She has not been to Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg nor Canterbury; do not forget Nauvoo, LDS call themselves Christian too.

Salvation is not about which church one joins; salvation is of the Lord. One could join every church in the world and still be bound for hell.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Linda64:
If anybody is doing any "bashing" it is the RCC--they anathematize anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

Being anathema means being outside the Roman Catholic Church. Since you were never in the RCC and would never be in the RCC, why does this offend you?

As for the statement, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", RCC considers protestants to be inside the Church even though they are anathema or outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church : The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Whenever two or more disagree, they cannot all be right; they could all be wrong. How does one decide: who is right? Certainly, God is not the author of all this confusion.

The standard or authority for the issue at hand is The Word of God and that only. If we add the traditions and other commandments of men for the past 6,000 years, we have a real dilemma: man is depraved and subject to serious error, willingly or unwillingly. We have the infallible Word, written; we also have the Word made Flesh, who dwelt among us. We also crucified Him.

When one compares the plain teaching of the Scripture to the religious practices of those called Christian in the past 2,000 years, one has to be astounded at the gross divergence/perversion of the doctrines. We have salvation and the maintenence thereof by works of men beginning with the sprinkling of infants. We have a memorial supper changed into a magical/pagan ritual with a literal changing of physical states of bread and wine into flesh and blood by the recitation of words by a man duly dubbed to do so.

Several ripostes to this:-

1. "Plain teaching of Scripture" - no such animal. If there was, all Christians would agree what it was.

2. "Memorial supper" - only in recent Church history and then only among a small minority of Christians. Right from the earliest times, Christians have celebrated communion as much more than a mere memorial. It's the other way round to the way you suggest: the presence of and reception the Lord's Body and Blood in communion has been "changed" as you put it by a small minority of Christians in recent years into a mere memorial.

3. "Man is depraved and subject to serious error". Correct. That means you, me and every other poster on this board. That also means that your individual interpretation of Scripture, mine and everyone else's individual interpretation cannot be trusted.

 

[Eliyahu]

RCC and true Christians who are really born again are totally different each other. they are totally different religions.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
RCC and true Christians who are really born again are totally different each other. they are totally different religions.

Here are some quotes from the Catechism of the Cahtolic church that I think you would probably agree with.

Catechism of the Catholic Church : Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Grace and Justification

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

 

[Bunyon]

That is not the whole story, GD. The scriptures are rivaled by other authorities. So although they give the scriptures authority, they have at least two other authorities that rival and compete with it.

Also, on salvation. They believe salvation is by grace but not grace alone. They believe grace gets you in the door, but then you must work your way to the holy place, if you will.

 

[Bunyon]

That is not the whole story, GD. The scriptures are rivaled by other authorities. So although they give the scriptures authority, they have at least two other authorities that rival and compete with it.

Also, on salvation. They believe salvation is by grace but not grace alone. They believe grace gets you in the door, but then you must work your way to the holy place, if you will.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
RCC and true Christians who are really born again are totally different each other. they are totally different religions.

And you know this how, exactly?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
That is not the whole story, GD. The scriptures are rivaled by other authorities. So although they give the scriptures authority, they have at least two other authorities that rival and compete with it.

Also, on salvation. They believe salvation is by grace but not grace alone. They believe grace gets you in the door, but then you must work your way to the holy place, if you will.

I acknowledge that there are differences between RCC and my theology. But I was addressing Eliyahu's claim that we are totally different.

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Then how come all saved, born again believers disagree about what the Bible means? Sounds to me like the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...

It's not the Holy Spirit that isn't doing a good job. It is people who don't listen to the Holy Spirit or people who don't even KNOW Jesus Christ and are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. God never contradicts Himself.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Linda64:
It's not the Holy Spirit that isn't doing a good job. It is people who don't listen to the Holy Spirit or people who don't even KNOW Jesus Christ and are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. God never contradicts Himself.

Then the next question would be how does one know who is actually listening to the Holy Spirit? Anyone can claim they are listening to the Holy Spirit. In fact proponents of contrary interpretations often do claim that theirs is the true Spirit guided interpretation. Since God doesn't contradict Himself (as you rightly point out), how does one objectively determine who is in fact "listening" to the Spirit? (In otherwords, an objective answer would not be: "Well, so-and-so is listening to the Spirit because I happen to agree with his theological viewpoint.

)