Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[utilyan]

I proved my point through the historic principle of sola scriptura, something Jesus did in Luke 24:

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
--He went through all the OT and expounded to them all the Scriptures concerning himself. That is sola scriptura.

When Jesus had departed from them then the disciples said:
Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
--What an effect the living Word had upon them!

A while later he appeared to all the disciples:
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
--Again, using the principle of sola scriptura, he expounded the scriptures so that they could understand them.

Then he draws a conclusion for them and applies it by giving a command:
Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
--They were witnesses (Acts 1:8). They were to go with the message he had given them.

I have answered you with scripture. You simply complain. If you had any answer at all you would be able to use a Bible and do as Peter commanded:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

But Catholics are never ready to answer anyone out of the Bible. They can't. They hate sola scriptura just as they dislike true biblical teaching. Their doctrines are the doctrines of men with origins in paganism. If I am wrong show me that I am wrong. The fact that you cannot show me that I am wrong demonstrates that the RCC and its doctrines are a false religion teaching false doctrines.

Scripture alone doesn't work.

Matthew 22
29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.


They had the scriptures ALONE, SOLA SCRIPTURA. SCRIPTURA + GUIDANCE OF JESUS CHRIST. Then you have a game.

On top of direction and guidance of scripture, why even mention the power of God?




By the way "FAITH ALONERS",

Why should anyone leave the catholic faith or even suggest it, If you already made up your mind there is nothing YOU CAN DO NOR I can DO to better or hurt my chances with GOD!??!


Its like you already PRACTICE what we PREACH and are against preaching what you practice! Albeit slightly mistaken, But embracing the core principle.
I feel like a parent who's child is convinced dad is a burglar. Partly proud he hit me with a stick.........defending the home. He's just hitting the wrong guy.

 

[steaver]

Sin is when you willfully choose to disobey God. If you didn't want to sin, forced by "fallen flesh" your innocent, sinless even now.

Questioning point of views, applying them to real life, is a great way to test truth from error. So I have three questions for you which would apply to your pov here on sin;

1) Are you sinless? (Yes or No)
2) Judging your own self, How often would you say you sin? (ex; once a week, once a day, once a month, etc.)
3) Why are you choosing to willfully sin so much if you love Jesus Christ, if indeed you are sinning at all?

 

[DHK]

The fact is I could argue my point using the Scriptures and you would continue to say that I and the Catholic Church are in error (as you already do) and I don't believe for a minute you would ever admit you were wrong. You have too much invested in what you believe at this point to consider any other argument.

I will consider your arguments. But realize that the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice as it was for the prophets, apostles and Christ.
I have an outstanding challenge to all Catholics such as yourself and my own relatives. Prove me wrong through the scriptures and I will change. But if I show your religion is wrong through the scriptures then you are the one that should change. Agreed?

I have had interactions with others like Jehovah's Witnesses folks who have argued with the same zeal, intensity, and purpose of truth as you do. I sincerely believe that Jesus could show up at your house tonight and you would argue YOUR biblical interpretation against His.

You should do some outside reading, that is outside the RCC.
I teach in a Bible College, both here in Canada, and on the mission-field. I have done so for many years. One of the subjects I teach is "World Religions and Cults." There are various different books written from a Christian perspective that cover this topic. Very few, if any, omit the RCC as another world religion (some even classifying it as a cult). Not one of them put it under the category of Christianity, because it just isn't.
I have explained that to you many times now. Catholicism is not Christianity. It has some elements of Christianity (like the J.W.'s) and then it has mixed that with paganism. That is what cults do. Ask a dozen Catholics to explain the gospel, and no two of them will give the same answer. With evangelicals the same cannot be said.

Look, I am truly happy for you that you have found God through your particular form of Christianity. For you it works, but for billions of other Christian followers on this earth now and all through history - not so much.

I don't have a religion. Catholicism is a religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I agree with song writer who wrote:

I serve a risen Savior
He’s in the world today.
I know that He is living,
Whatever men may say.
I see His hand of mercy;
I hear His voice of cheer;
And just the time I need Him
He’s always near.

He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.
--A.H. Ackley 1933

Catholicism is a religion. I don't have a religion. I have a relation, as is described above.
My relationship is with Jesus Christ my Lord whom I talk with and who listens to me. He talks to me through His Word. By the power of His Holy Spirit He lives within me.

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

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

 

[DHK]

Scripture alone doesn't work.

Matthew 22
29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.


They had the scriptures ALONE, SOLA SCRIPTURA. SCRIPTURA + GUIDANCE OF JESUS CHRIST. Then you have a game.

On top of direction and guidance of scripture, why even mention the power of God?

Because they did not believe the Scriptures.
They did not believe the incarnate Christ, the Messiah, who stood right before them.
In their dreadful unbelief, though they thought they were right, unlike Jesus who spoke with authority, they had no authority to speak whatsoever. The word "power" means "authority." The Bible records that the crowds followed Jesus, for "he spoke with authority and not as the scribes." He used sola scriptura quoting the OT often. The OT was completed in Hebrew by 400 B.C. and a Greek translation of it was made ca. 250 B.C.. They had their canon of Scriptures, which was the OT. After all they were Jews weren't they? This is pre-cross.

By the way "FAITH ALONERS",

Why should anyone leave the catholic faith or even suggest it, If you already made up your mind there is nothing YOU CAN DO NOR I can DO to better or hurt my chances with GOD!??!

Do what you believe to be true. If bowing down to Buddha is the right thing to do then do it, but what evidence can you provide that it is the right thing to do. What evidence can you bring that your position (whatever it is) is the right thing to do. When you state your position, provide the evidence that you have the truth.
An Islamic suicide bomber blows himself up. What evidence does he have that he is right. He has none. He is deceived. I believe you are too. You cannot provide evidence of your position, neither have you posted any. Opinion is fine. It is a vain man's imagination. It doesn't wash in the sight of God. In the judgment God will not accept it.

Its like you already PRACTICE what we PREACH and are against preaching what you practice! Albeit slightly mistaken, But embracing the core principle.
I feel like a parent who's child is convinced dad is a burglar. Partly proud he hit me with a stick.........defending the home. He's just hitting the wrong guy.

A child is born into a family and thus already a child. How did he become a child? He was born again. Jesus said three times to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." This has nothing to do with baptism. Find out what it does mean and you find out the answer to your question.

 

[BobRyan]

Purgatory is easily defended in the fact you must be sinless to be before God in heaven.

Interesting.

How does purgatory "make you sinless"?

If purgatory makes you sinless - why are so many Catholics told to get their loved ones out of purgatory by earning indulgences?

And why would anyone want to promote the doctrine of purgatory - when it is not in the Bible at all - but rather is opposed to the Bible?

The notion one is still going to sin in heaven is absurd - as all will agree - so why would we want Catholics who claim they are still sinning after death - to go to heaven without first staying in purgatory right to the last drop of sin?

One dies, what happens? You go to heaven and look one is still the same sinful self?

Heb 9 "It is appointed unto man once to die - and then comes the judgment"
2 Cor 5:10 "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in the body - whether good or evil."

The problem with sin isn't the legal consequences

Rom 6:23 "The wages of sin is death" -- Rev 20 "This is the second death" -- the one owed for sin.

That IS the "big deal".

But if you are saying that you cannot be a world-loving-Christian going through the motions but not really born-again and still get into heaven -- well I fully agree. But that is what hell is for.

Death being point A, heaven being point B.

Whatever happens between A and B give it a name for us.

1 Thess 4 - calls it sleep.

So also does 1Cor 15.

Should the Bible have said "purgatory" instead of "sleep"??

(I love it -- all my favorite topics in one thread)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Nowhere found in Scripture? See 1 Cor 3 7:17

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Christ is the foundation of the church - not Peter.

No OTHER foundation is acceptable.

1 Cor 3

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

====================
The teaching of the builders is their WORK. The WORK is being tried in fire and burns away the hay stubble and dross. The builders' WORK is their doctrine their teaching -- not their skin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[utilyan]

Questioning point of views, applying them to real life, is a great way to test truth from error. So I have three questions for you which would apply to your pov here on sin;

1) Are you sinless? (Yes or No)
2) Judging your own self, How often would you say you sin? (ex; once a week, once a day, once a month, etc.)
3) Why are you choosing to willfully sin so much if you love Jesus Christ, if indeed you are sinning at all?

1.Completely
2.NEVER
3.Nope I never sin, its just this "Fallen Flesh" God made, so its all GOD's fault.

 

[DHK]

1.Completely
2.NEVER
3.Nope I never sin, its just this "Fallen Flesh" God made, so its all GOD's fault.

Three statements and three sins. And then you laugh at it which again is another sin. Pitiful!

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23

 

[steaver]

1.Completely
2.NEVER
3.Nope I never sin, its just this "Fallen Flesh" God made, so its all GOD's fault.

Goes to show you how applying questions to your pov reveals your flaws in that pov. For you to answer is to destroy your position, yet you will refuse to answer and cling to it anyways, even though you see how the questions have exposed the error in your pov.

 

[Adonia]

I will consider your arguments. But realize that the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice as it was for the prophets, apostles and Christ.
I have an outstanding challenge to all Catholics such as yourself and my own relatives. Prove me wrong through the scriptures and I will change. But if I show your religion is wrong through the scriptures then you are the one that should change. Agreed?

You should do some outside reading, that is outside the RCC.
I teach in a Bible College, both here in Canada, and on the mission-field. I have done so for many years. One of the subjects I teach is "World Religions and Cults." There are various different books written from a Christian perspective that cover this topic. Very few, if any, omit the RCC as another world religion (some even classifying it as a cult). Not one of them put it under the category of Christianity, because it just isn't.
I have explained that to you many times now. Catholicism is not Christianity. It has some elements of Christianity (like the J.W.'s) and then it has mixed that with paganism. That is what cults do. Ask a dozen Catholics to explain the gospel, and no two of them will give the same answer. With evangelicals the same cannot be said.


I don't have a religion. Catholicism is a religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I agree with song writer who wrote:

I serve a risen Savior
He’s in the world today.
I know that He is living,
Whatever men may say.
I see His hand of mercy;
I hear His voice of cheer;
And just the time I need Him
He’s always near.

He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.
--A.H. Ackley 1933

Catholicism is a religion. I don't have a religion. I have a relation, as is described above.
My relationship is with Jesus Christ my Lord whom I talk with and who listens to me. He talks to me through His Word. By the power of His Holy Spirit He lives within me.

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

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

Religion:

1. : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The word "religion" and what it actually means is not a bad thing. I thought a follower of Jesus Christ is all about truth and is not afraid of the truth? If you believe in the above listed definition the truth is you do have a religion - it's called the Christian religion, or in your case Baptist which is one of the many sects that make up the Christian religion.

As for your claim that Catholicism is not Christian - I reject that in it's totality! Who are you to decide such things? Your explanations on this are without merit, nothing but lies and falsehoods and you ought to be ashamed. You can't even admit that you are involved in a religion and you are going to expound on what some other faith tradition is or isn't? Good grief!

In ending, I would like to re-post part of a message from Dr. Bob first posted in the announcements section. In part he wrote: "This is NOT a forum to try to cast doubt on a person's relationship with the Lord .....".

 

[steaver]

Religion:

1. : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

But you do not see anything about a "personal relationship" with another in those definitions. Religion CANNOT and DOES NOT save. This I believe you as a Catholic can not agree with for you being a Catholic would have to say it is the RCC which saves.

 

[DHK]

Religion:

1. : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The word "religion" and what it actually means is not a bad thing. I thought a follower of Jesus Christ is all about truth and is not afraid of the truth? If you believe in the above listed definition the truth is you do have a religion - it's called the Christian religion, or in your case Baptist which is one of the many sects that make up the Christian religion.

Religion is not a bad thing? So I suppose you could be a Muslim and it is not such a bad thing, right?
Here is what Josh McDowell explains in his book, "Handbook of Today's Religions"
The derivation of the word religion suggests several possible readings, as Herbert Stroup reveals:

The English word "religion" derives from the Latin religio. Even so there is no clear agreement as to the meaning of the word. Servius and others, for example, held that it came from the root "lig-", which means “to bind.” Religion in this sense would signify a relationship--the binding relationship between man and God. Yet Cicero believed that the word was derived from the root "leg-" which means “to take up, gather, count, or observe.” The meaning here suggests the observation of the signs of divine communication. In later times, both meanings were accepted by Augustine, for example, and today there seems to be little if any question regarding the propriety of either derivation (Herbert Stroup, Four Religions of Asia, New York: Harper & Row, 1968, p.6).

Even secular religions, though they have no belief in God or the supernatural, and involve no form of worship or liturgy, still are more or less unified comprehensive world views which seek to explain the “why” of existence. Because they have their own “creeds,” “scriptures,” “clergy;” and closely knit groups, they may properly be labeled religions. (Intro. Page 12)
--However, unlike all other religions of the world true, Biblical Christianity differs in these ways:
1. It alone follows a "living Savior." Jesus lives today. He is not a dead Savior. He is not in the grave like Mohammed is.
2. Salvation is not by works, like all other religions (including the RCC).
3. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
4. True Biblical Christianity is not a religion at all; it is a relationship; a vital living relationship with Jesus Christ. The RCC does not have this, does not teach this, but rather teaches against this with its religion of works, laboriously following the sacraments to attain their salvation.

As for your claim that Catholicism is not Christian - I reject that in it's totality! Who are you to decide such things?

I don't decide it; the Bible does.
The Bible decides in Eph.2:8,9 that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The RCC rejects this, but this is what makes our faith "Christian," not the ungodly Crusades and inquisitions of the past.

Your explanations on this are without merit, nothing but lies and falsehoods and you ought to be ashamed. You can't even admit that you are involved in a religion and you are going to expound on what some other faith tradition is or isn't? Good grief!

Then prove me wrong?
Do you have a living relationship with Jesus Christ? How and when did this happen?
Does the spirit that dwells in you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God? How do you know?

In ending, I would like to re-post part of a message from Dr. Bob first posted in the announcements section. In part he wrote: "This is NOT a forum to try to cast doubt on a person's relationship with the Lord .....".

This is the Other Christian Denominations Forum. When there is someone here who cannot post their salvation experience, who doesn't know if they are saved, who cannot say for sure if their sins are forgiven and they are on their way to heaven, then one has every right to explain to them the gospel (our responsibility even), and show why their "religion" is wrong and what is the true way of salvation.
The RCC is a path of destruction and a way to hell. I sincerely hope you will see the error of your ways.

 

[Adonia]

Religion is not a bad thing? So I suppose you could be a Muslim and it is not such a bad thing, right?
Here is what Josh McDowell explains in his book, "Handbook of Today's Religions"
The derivation of the word religion suggests several possible readings, as Herbert Stroup reveals:

The English word "religion" derives from the Latin religio. Even so there is no clear agreement as to the meaning of the word. Servius and others, for example, held that it came from the root "lig-", which means “to bind.” Religion in this sense would signify a relationship--the binding relationship between man and God. Yet Cicero believed that the word was derived from the root "leg-" which means “to take up, gather, count, or observe.” The meaning here suggests the observation of the signs of divine communication. In later times, both meanings were accepted by Augustine, for example, and today there seems to be little if any question regarding the propriety of either derivation (Herbert Stroup, Four Religions of Asia, New York: Harper & Row, 1968, p.6).

Even secular religions, though they have no belief in God or the supernatural, and involve no form of worship or liturgy, still are more or less unified comprehensive world views which seek to explain the “why” of existence. Because they have their own “creeds,” “scriptures,” “clergy;” and closely knit groups, they may properly be labeled religions. (Intro. Page 12)
--However, unlike all other religions of the world true, Biblical Christianity differs in these ways:
1. It alone follows a "living Savior." Jesus lives today. He is not a dead Savior. He is not in the grave like Mohammed is.
2. Salvation is not by works, like all other religions (including the RCC).
3. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
4. True Biblical Christianity is not a religion at all; it is a relationship; a vital living relationship with Jesus Christ. The RCC does not have this, does not teach this, but rather teaches against this with its religion of works, laboriously following the sacraments to attain their salvation.

I don't decide it; the Bible does.
The Bible decides in Eph.2:8,9 that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The RCC rejects this, but this is what makes our faith "Christian," not the ungodly Crusades and inquisitions of the past.

Then prove me wrong?
Do you have a living relationship with Jesus Christ? How and when did this happen?
Does the spirit that dwells in you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God? How do you know?

This is the Other Christian Denominations Forum. When there is someone here who cannot post their salvation experience, who doesn't know if they are saved, who cannot say for sure if their sins are forgiven and they are on their way to heaven, then one has every right to explain to them the gospel (our responsibility even), and show why their "religion" is wrong and what is the true way of salvation.
The RCC is a path of destruction and a way to hell. I sincerely hope you will see the error of your ways.

I already told you about the experience I have with Jesus Christ and you said it was not valid, so I do not see the need to repeat myself. You are not some sort of Christian expert or religious authority that I have to answer to in any way as we come here as equals, each with their own particular relationship with Jesus Christ.

The only thing I will say is that we are both followers of and believe in Him as the Savior and you should accept that fact (which is my testimony) in a respectful manner - and you simply don't. It really is quite ironic that you profess to love Him so much but reject the biblical truth that His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is indeed encapsulated within the Holy Eucharist. It is easy to do and you just need to have a little faith that Jesus did indeed proclaim such a thing. The Scriptures say it, the orthodox Christianity teaches it, the historical truth sustains it, and more Christians on this earth believe it than don't.

1.Yes, we both agree that Jesus is truly alive, just as the Scriptures say all Christians, even those whose mortal bodies are asleep, are also alive in Him.

2.The Catholic Church does not teach that we are saved by works only, so you are mistaken on that one.

3. Salvation comes from the sacrifice on Calvary, that's why we call Jesus Christ "the Savior".

4. Christianity is a religion - that reflects the truth of the definition. You can deny that, but sticking your head in the sand will not change that reality.

The Catholic Church and Christ are one and I pray that one day you will come to your senses and believe that reality. As for works and faith they both are an integral part of the Christian experience, there is not one without the other but people like you seem to constantly miss that. I come to my Christian belief by faith and that in turn leads me to the works that the Christian should do as he lives out his life. A belief in God, something that one cannot see, cannot come about except by faith.

As I said before, those who were once of a certain faith tradition are now the most vehement against it and you prove that here regularly. Unlike what you say against me and even though you reject Christ's Church, I do not believe you are on the path to destruction. Your present Christian sect does have elements of truth to it, and God being merciful I am confident He will show you mercy for your error filled ways at the appropriate time. God bless!

 

[steaver]

I already told you about the experience I have with Jesus Christ

I don't think he was asking about the experience you have, but rather about the time you first received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour? You may have heard of Him for years, even from a young age, but when did you call upon Jesus Christ to save you and invite Him to dwell in you?

 

[DHK]

I already told you about the experience I have with Jesus Christ and you said it was not valid, so I do not see the need to repeat myself. You are not some sort of Christian expert or religious authority that I have to answer to in any way as we come here as equals, each with their own particular relationship with Jesus Christ.

The only thing I will say is that we are both followers of and believe in Him as the Savior and you should accept that fact (which is my testimony) in a respectful manner - and you simply don't.

Jesus told Nicodemus three times: "You must be born again."
Have you been born again? If so, when, where, and how?
Keep in mind that "being born again" or the new birth has nothing to do with baptism.

 

[herbert]

I have an outstanding challenge to all Catholics such as yourself and my own relatives. Prove me wrong through the scriptures and I will change.

DHK,

My Internet connection went from doomed to intermittent to secure. I am working on a response to Martin right now. But I just have to jump in here and thank you for saying what you said above. This statement reveals the very point that you're stuck on that I've been challenging for 20+ pages. And I can prove right now that your position is illegitimate. How? By the fact that this "challenge to all Catholics" is itself unBiblical. It fails its own test. I have stated this much in many ways. But the bottom line is that you have just demonstrated the illegitimacy of your own position. You're hinging everything upon an unBiblical notion.

I don't have to do anything more than point out the obvious to refute you. I'll "prove you wrong" simply by pointing out the fact that your test is itself NOT found in the Bible. So forget the whole things. It's merely human opinion, thought, philosophy. It's not revealed by a prophet, Scripture itself, or an angel.

So forget it. It's man-made. It's not Biblical. It's unScriptural. It isn't revealed by God. What is revealed by God, though, is the fact that Christ instituted His Church and guaranteed it for the sake of the family of God.

So there you have it: You challenged all Catholics. And in response to your challenge I am simply pointing out the undeniable fact that your test is itself unBiblical. Therefore, again, it holds within itself its own rebuttal. It falls like a house of cards. It collapses in upon itself and is revealed as anything but binding upon Christians. What is binding, though, upon ALL Christians, is the authority of Christ's Church.

How can you present to us, in an effort to uphold your Biblicism a test which is itself obviously unBiblical?

Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK,

My Internet connection went from doomed to intermittent to secure. I am working on a response to Martin right now. But I just have to jump in here and thank you for saying what you said above. This statement reveals the very point that you're stuck on that I've been challenging for 20+ pages. And I can prove right now that your position is illegitimate. How? By the fact that this "challenge to all Catholics" is itself unBiblical. It fails its own test. I have stated this much in many ways. But the bottom line is that you have just demonstrated the illegitimacy of your own position. You're hinging everything upon an unBiblical notion.

First note that my challenge is qualified "through the Scriptures."
Most Catholics don't know the scriptures and the ones that are somewhat familiar with them take them out of context and make them mean something they don't. The RCC is not based on what is written in the Bible, but rather on man-made traditions which in fact trump the Bible. There are many things that are written in the Catechism which are totally unbiblical.

I don't have to do anything more than point out the obvious to refute you. I'll "prove you wrong" simply by pointing out the fact that your test is itself NOT found in the Bible. So forget the whole things. It's merely human opinion, thought, philosophy. It's not revealed by a prophet, Scripture itself, or an angel.

Nonsense! I teach in a college. The course is according to whatever text I give them. Suppose I were teaching them Biology. The text would not be the Bible, but according to the Biology text that I had given to them to study. In order to pass the course they would have to answer properly according to the text.
In this case we are using the text that God has given us, His divine word, the Scriptures which we have and know as the Bible. This is our textbook. Prove me wrong according to the textbook that we use in our faith. Perhaps it is not the text of the RCC. That doesn't matter to me. It is the book which is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice to us in this classroom which you have entered, and you must use this text in this class if you are to pass. Right?

So forget it. It's man-made. It's not Biblical. It's unScriptural. It isn't revealed by God. What is revealed by God, though, is the fact that Christ instituted His Church and guaranteed it for the sake of the family of God.

The Bible is not man-made unless that is the position of the RCC, and if so I advise you to leave. Islam puts the Bible on a higher plane than simply a "man-made book."
Since the scriptures are God's revelation given to man and we are commanded to study them, even on a personal basis, then we have that obligation. It is not the duty of the church to tell us what to believe. It is the obligation of every believer to study the Word. When each and every person stands before God he will give account of himself. The Church will not be there to defend him. He will give account of himself. Why did he not accept Christ? Why did he reject him?
Why did he believe so erroneously that the new birth is baptism?
And now he is on way to hell because he believed the damnable heresy of the RCC?
This is serious brother!
Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
--It is not the Church that gives account it is the individual.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The "whosoever" here are all those who are not "born again."

 

[DHK]

So there you have it: You challenged all Catholics. And in response to your challenge I am simply pointing out the undeniable fact that your test is itself unBiblical. Therefore, again, it holds within itself its own rebuttal. It falls like a house of cards. It collapses in upon itself and is revealed as anything but binding upon Christians. What is binding, though, upon ALL Christians, is the authority of Christ's Church.

How can you present to us, in an effort to uphold your Biblicism a test which is itself obviously unBiblical?

Herbert

The tenet is very Biblical, as Biblical as it is logical. You simply don't want to accept it.
When Paul arrived at Berea, the Bereans examined everything Paul said through the scriptures. They checked his work. They did it through the Scriptures which they had. They challenged him whether he was right or wrong, and he was right of course. They knew it.
Paul commended them for their faithfulness to the scriptures.

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.

What house of cards is there in Biology? in Math? in English?
You are examined according to the subject matter, how well you know it.

But Jesus said:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Hosea, the prophet said:
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Yes the challenge is there, and always has been. But the sad truth is that the Catholic does not know the Word of God. He does not understand the Word of God. He does not understand what the new birth is. Even the Catechism misleads him, and thus he is destined to an eternity without Christ.

Christ said to the religious leaders of his day:
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

 

[herbert]

First note that my challenge is qualified "through the Scriptures."

What do you mean by saying that your challenge is "qualified" through the Scriptures? Your challenge isn't itself Scriptural. You made it up.

Most Catholics don't know the scriptures and the ones that are somewhat familiar with them take them out of context and make them mean something they don't. The RCC is not based on what is written in the Bible, but rather on man-made traditions which in fact trump the Bible. There are many things that are written in the Catechism which are totally unbiblical.

Your opinion concerning Catholics and their knowledge of Scripture has nothing to do with your challenge to all Catholics. It also has nothing to do with my response to your challenge. Further, the "RCC" doesn't claim to be "based on what is written in the Bible..." The Catholic Church claims to be founded upon the prophets and the Apostles with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. Also, the Church's self-understanding isn't my point. My point is to say that your "challenge" fails its own test. It's represents a "man-made" tradition which is itself not in the Bible and which places the Bible in a position it was never meant, by God Almighty, to occupy. The fact, also, that you see "many things" in the Catechism as being "totally unbiblical" shouldn't be a mark against them, it just puts them in the same category as the very test by which you condemn the Catholic Church.

Nonsense! I teach in a college. The course is according to whatever text I give them. Suppose I were teaching them Biology. The text would not be the Bible, but according to the Biology text that I had given to them to study. In order to pass the course they would have to answer properly according to the text.

The problem is, again, the fact that you're presuming that the Bible is supposed to be treated like a textbook. It's not. Nowhere within its pages does it even begin to imply that it can or should be approached as one would approach a textbook.

In this case we are using the text that God has given us, His divine word, the Scriptures which we have and know as the Bible. This is our textbook. Prove me wrong according to the textbook that we use in our faith.

Isn't the fact that the "textbook" never claims to be a "textbook" proof that your ascribing to it "textbook status" is an act which stands in violation of the principles and teachings found within it? Again, your Biblicism is itself unBiblical.

Perhaps it is not the text of the RCC. That doesn't matter to me. It is the book which is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice to us in this classroom which you have entered, and you must use this text in this class if you are to pass. Right?

Again, you continue to presuppose the very thing in question between us. And how do you define who "us" is? You define "us" as "those who agree with your unproven point." Your position leads to things like this:
Person 1: So who's right?
Person2: We are.
Person 1: Who's we?
Person 2: Those who agree with us.
Person 1: How do you know you're right?
Person 2: We agree with each other.
Person 1: How do you know you're agreeing upon the right thing?
Person 2: Because we're right.
Person 1: How do you know you're right?
Person 2: Because we agree with each other.

The Bible is not man-made unless that is the position of the RCC, and if so I advise you to leave. Islam puts the Bible on a higher plane than simply a "man-made book." Since the scriptures are God's revelation given to man and we are commanded to study them, even on a personal basis, then we have that obligation.

None of this has anything to do with my response to your challenge.

It is not the duty of the church to tell us what to believe.

Where does the Bible say that it is "not the duty of the church to tell us what to believe..."?

You continually criticize the Catholic faith for being unBiblical. Many of the things you say, however, aren't just allegedly "unBiblical," they contradict things found in the Bible. Look at Acts 15. Here we have a case of the Apostles together presenting a binding teaching. The Church is right there telling believers what to believe. The Church is, after all, the pillar and ground of truth. Further, the Apostles were granted authority to bind and loose. The Church, then, was granted the authority to teach. You've transplanted that authority by claiming it for yourself while convincing yourself that you simply follow the Bible. Accessing the Bible through your own mind, however, you've introduced a fallible agent into the equation and are thus capable of producing nothing but human opinion when it comes to matters of faith. Where you get it right, it just so happens that you're aligned with the doctrine of Christ's Church. Where you get it wrong, though, you've got nothing to set you straight. For there are many things in the Bible which are hard to understand and which can be misinterpreted (even by those who may mean well) according to ignorance.

It is the obligation of every believer to study the Word. When each and every person stands before God he will give account of himself. The Church will not be there to defend him. He will give account of himself. Why did he not accept Christ? Why did he reject him?
Why did he believe so erroneously that the new birth is baptism?
And now he is on way to hell because he believed the damnable heresy of the RCC?
This is serious brother!
Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
--It is not the Church that gives account it is the individual.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The "whosoever" here are all those who are not "born again."

Notice what you've done here. You often respond with a slew of randomness in response to a very direct point. In this case, I am simply pointing out the fact that your test represents nothing but an exercise in pointlessness. For it is not found in the Bible and not revealed by God as a legitimate means by which to evaluate anyone else's doctrines much less your own. And the fact that you "teach" this stuff (which really means that you tell your students what you think the Bible means) has nothing to do with the fact that the whole scheme you've adopted which masquerades as Biblical is itself unBiblical.

As always, thanks for your time. As I said, since we still have Internet, after all, I'll be back.

Herbert

 

[DHK]

What do you mean by saying that your challenge is "qualified" through the Scriptures? Your challenge isn't itself Scriptural. You made it up.

Perhaps the word “challenge” is confusing you. I am discussing Biblical doctrine and nothing but biblical doctrine, thus the scriptures. It is a scriptural and doctrinal question. When a Catholic brings to the table such things as purgatory and indulgences those are in the realm of the meta-physical but, outside of scripture.

Take the word “challenge” away. Demonstrate to me that my doctrine is wrong just as you would if you were speaking to any other person (J.W., Mormon, or even Muslim). Why is my position wrong, according to the scriptures? If it is right according to the scriptures and yours is wrong, the Bible being our infallible guide then you are the one that ought to change. If my position is wrong, I will change. That is where I have worded it as a challenge. There is nothing wrong with that. It only makes it more personal.

Your opinion concerning Catholics and their knowledge of Scripture has nothing to do with your challenge to all Catholics.

I live in a nation that is more than 50% Catholic. My neighbors are Catholic. I do door-to-door evangelizing and have for years, and thus have met hundreds if not thousands of Catholics. I have never met a Catholic yet who has had a proper understanding of the new birth. I speak from experience, experience of being more than 40 years in the ministry. I have met a number of “brothers” living near the University. Their knowledge of the Bible was woefully lacking. I asked them “How do you account for the doctrine of purgatory through Scriptures?” They said: “Yeah, that’s a good one.” IOW they couldn’t. It is a man-made doctrine, obviously.

My challenge to you is to show me where my doctrine is man-made or not biblical. It is based on the Bible whereas yours, for the most part, is not.

It also has nothing to do with my response to your challenge. Further, the "RCC" doesn't claim to be "based on what is written in the Bible..." The Catholic Church claims to be founded upon the prophets and the Apostles with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone.

That is more of an opinion. It is a statement that you just made but you cannot back it up. You have no evidence and cannot provide any. This is part of my challenge to you. I can back up my beliefs through the Bible. You cannot. Show how this huge business organization called the RCC is founded on the prophets and the apostles with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone.

Demonstrate that it is the RCC that holds that position. You can’t do that. You have no proof. I challenge you to bring forth the evidence.

Besides that you should not be making statements on the board without evidence, and without verification. Otherwise it is just propaganda. That is what you are posting: nothing but propaganda!![/quote]

Also, the Church's self-understanding isn't my point. My point is to say that your "challenge" fails its own test. It's represents a "man-made" tradition which is itself not in the Bible and which places the Bible in a position it was never meant, by God Almighty, to occupy. The fact, also, that you see "many things" in the Catechism as being "totally unbiblical" shouldn't be a mark against them, it just puts them in the same category as the very test by which you condemn the Catholic Church.

You don’t make any sense. The Bible itself says:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
--A paraphrase of the same verse says:
(CEV) Put everything to the test. Accept what is good

A couple of other translations:
(EMTV) But test all things; hold fast that which is good.
(ESV) but test everything; hold fast what is good.

--IOW, test your doctrines and only hold onto those ones which are good. It is evident that all those man-made doctrines such as Purgatory and indulgences are not good after being tested by the scriptures and should not be adhered to. They are totally unbiblical. Such are examples of many, many of the doctrines of the RCC.

Again, show me where my doctrine is wrong and I will change. But will you change if I show you were you are wrong in the Scriptures. I already know the answer. Now you must come to the answer if you really believe the scriptures or not.

--The Catechism is not our final authority just like the Book of Mormon isn’t. The Bible is. Whether I talk to a Catholic or a Mormon, the Bible is always my authority.

The problem is, again, the fact that you're presuming that the Bible is supposed to be treated like a textbook. It's not. Nowhere within its pages does it even begin to imply that it can or should be approached as one would approach a textbook.

It is our textbook, our guide in life, etc. It is many things to us.

God’s people have been castigated by the Lord for not knowing it well as a text book. They are put to shame in that they know their secular material better than their Bibles. I memorize scripture. I put my mind to the memorization of scripture. But I have had to do that in the past when I took subjects than the Bible—memorize definitions in other subject areas. The mind works the same way. The Bible commands us to memorize.

Psalm 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

Psalm 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

BTW, a "textbook" is simply a book to learn from. Do you not learn from the Bible?