Where are the Elements for Eternal Salvation?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#41
“I believe,” says the Catholic, “because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God commanded me to believe her.” Jesus said: “Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matthew 18:17) “He that believeth you believeth Me. He that despiseth you despiseth Me.” (Luke 10
Sadly everyone despises the Church nowadays and there has always been great adversity towards it. The Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.
God does not command us to believe the private interpretation of men as the things of men .

God commands us to believe Him as the things of God . Not the commandments of men as the things of men . The things of men in that way offend God.

The Catholic teach we do need a man to teach us, as a law not subject to change , as if God was a man and us and there was a fleshly mediator as that seen between man and God, as a Pope or what the scripture refers to as a daysman . They refuse to hear the warning against them

These things have I written unto you concerning them that "seduce you". 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. 1Jo 2:26

By violating the warning in 1 John 2 they again insist a man must each us. It provides the ideology of the antichrists.

Peter in whom the Catholic as a law of the fathers insist the church is built upon is rather than being built on the gospel .

Peter is used as an negative example on how the antichrist (singular Satan) works in the affairs of men as one of the many antichrists (many) that were there. Even though he denied the faith of Christ, because Christ had paid the wage of His sin we understand what Christ means when he said... he cannot deny his own self.

Peter therefore received no strong delusion to believe the lie. Over and over he denied Christ again and again. He is the greatest denier listed

I don’t think Peter as the things of men was the key the unlocks the gates of hell?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the “things that be of God”, but “those that be of men”. Mat 16:18
 
Last edited:
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#42
Every Protestant says they pray that we come to truth but every one of their truths conflicts with each other.
Just as in the same as their idea of truth.Private interpretation, are private interpretations. His interpretation belongs to Him alone. The loving commandment is study to show h yourself approved of Him.

There is no commandment that suggests we seek the approval of men but many warnings not to.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#43
Embrace the Grace and Rejoice in His Everlasting Mercy and Love

But reject His Mother who in turn is ours as well..."When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother."
The scriptures inform us infallibly that the bride of Christ in respect to the new incorruptible bodies which no one has received. are made up of many lively stones that makes up the spiritul house of God not seen as the segregate mother of us all.

Paul acted as one who suffered as in birth pains until Christ (the spiritual seed) was formed in Timothy .Timothy was then used to represent the chaste virgin bride of Christ .

Without parables hiding the spiritual understanding from those who walk by sight... Christ spoke not . The mother thing is no exception.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,


Paul in his motherly way declared...

2Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Mary is one of the the many lively stones that does make up the bride of Christ... the mother of us all . Her corrupted flesh that was used in the birth of the Son of man did not profit , just as Christ declared it did not.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,707
3,650
113
#45
These works are in reference to the works of men...​Nowhere in the bible does it state faith “alone” justifies, and this new doctrine was not heard of before the 16th century. Why did the Protestant reformers propose it and what authority gave it to them?
That’s right. Christ alone justifies and it is faith alone that takes hold of Christ and faith is thus never alone.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#46
What are the elements for eternal salvation?

Cross
Three spikes
Saviour
Tomb
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,000
26,134
113
#48
That’s right. Christ alone justifies and it is faith alone that takes hold of Christ and faith is thus never alone.
It took time to sink in :eek: So nice to see you back again :D Welcome back!

welcome-back-we-missed-you.gif
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,046
13,055
113
58
#49
That’s right. Christ alone justifies and it is faith alone that takes hold of Christ and faith is thus never alone.
Amen! It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24-28; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24).
 
Oct 8, 2017
26
0
0
#50
If you wish to "kick" me from your website than please do so. I am not spam, I am a real Christian and the fact that I have been treated as less then human on this so-called "Christian" site has only affirmed the lack of charity this world has to offer toward someone who is merely defending their beliefs. I have attacked no one and am only sharing my experience, strength, and hope. Thank you for those who do take the time to read my blogs without making assumptions or judgements. All I have attempted to do was profess the truth in historical and rational ways. I am not here to sell a product or offend anyone. Every human being is a creature of God and should be treated as such. God Bless you.
 
Feb 5, 2017
1,118
36
0
#51
Don't let defilers break your spirit. Remember that these are simply people with weak and broken spirits, they are not as big as they want you to think they are.

You are allowed to be a Christian with your own unique beliefs, we are all different, it is impossible that we all think the same.
You are allowed to talk about things which are dear to you, and that you say in purity with a good conscience.

Just keep being you, and don't let anyone defile the strong spirit you have for what you want to talk about.

If you observe that you cannot ever counter-argue a person here, and feel yourself being drawn into an argument you cannot win, most likely you are talking to one of them. Let them say whatever they want to say, and ignore them. They want to draw you into reaction, and take your focus off what you are saying. And it is reacting that you give them what they want which is power over you.

Does God do that? No. Only evil does that.


If you wish to "kick" me from your website than please do so. I am not spam, I am a real Christian and the fact that I have been treated as less then human on this so-called "Christian" site has only affirmed the lack of charity this world has to offer toward someone who is merely defending their beliefs. I have attacked no one and am only sharing my experience, strength, and hope. Thank you for those who do take the time to read my blogs without making assumptions or judgements. All I have attempted to do was profess the truth in historical and rational ways. I am not here to sell a product or offend anyone. Every human being is a creature of God and should be treated as such. God Bless you.
 
Z

Zi

Guest
#52
Perhaps working on thicker skin would help?

Nobody wants Catholic garbage no matter how far back you go. They have a rules section, that would have been respectful of you to read it.. would have saved you time.
If you wish to "kick" me from your website than please do so. I am not spam, I am a real Christian and the fact that I have been treated as less then human on this so-called "Christian" site has only affirmed the lack of charity this world has to offer toward someone who is merely defending their beliefs. I have attacked no one and am only sharing my experience, strength, and hope. Thank you for those who do take the time to read my blogs without making assumptions or judgements. All I have attempted to do was profess the truth in historical and rational ways. I am not here to sell a product or offend anyone. Every human being is a creature of God and should be treated as such. God Bless you.
 
Z

Zi

Guest
#53
This is rebellion and error
Don't let defilers break your spirit. Remember that these are simply people with weak and broken spirits, they are not as big as they want you to think they are.

You are allowed to be a Christian with your own unique beliefs, we are all different, it is impossible that we all think the same.
You are allowed to talk about things which are dear to you, and that you say in purity with a good conscience.

Just keep being you, and don't let anyone defile the strong spirit you have for what you want to talk about.

If you observe that you cannot ever counter-argue a person here, and feel yourself being drawn into an argument you cannot win, most likely you are talking to one of them. Let them say whatever they want to say, and ignore them. They want to draw you into reaction, and take your focus off what you are saying. And it is reacting that you give them what they want which is power over you.

Does God do that? No. Only evil does that.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,481
12,950
113
#54
If you wish to "kick" me from your website than please do so. I am not spam, I am a real Christian and the fact that I have been treated as less then human on this so-called "Christian" site has only affirmed the lack of charity this world has to offer toward someone who is merely defending their beliefs.
No Christian should attack you personally, since you sincerely believe what you believe. But what you owe to yourself (as do all Catholics and Orthodox) is to study the New Testament INDEPENDENTLY, without any preconceived notions, and particularly Paul's epistle to the Romans. [Note: Peter, the "first pope" is not even mentioned. Think about that]

The truth of the matter is that the "traditionalist" churches perverted the Gospel and included the doctrines of men into their theology. And when a person's eternal destiny is at stake, only Divine Revelation will suffice. So why don't you do this and then tell why the Bible does not support Catholic teaching on salvation. Or if you think it does, then show us the Scriptures which prove the the doctrines of the RCC are true.
 
Oct 8, 2017
26
0
0
#55
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)

Actually, it is the Catholic Church who, through Her early Councils, originally confirmed which books of the Bible were considered inspired, and which books were to be included in the Canon of the Bible itself. This was essential to assure copies of Scripture had in those days agreed with the originals, and also to weed out books which contained heretical doctrine in them. The Catholic Church confirmed the books (the Canon) of the Bible in the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) when, according to the Protestant reformers, She was still the true Church.

The Catholic Church also confirmed the same Canon at the Council of Florence (1441) and Council of Trent centuries later and have used the same Canon ever since the Council of Hippo in 393. How then did the Protestant reformers remove so many books (i.e. Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Machabees, Wisdom etc) from the Old and New Testaments if it was the true Church that ruled they were Canonical? If the Protestant reformers truly thought the Catholic Church was the true Church at one time then later fell into error, why do the reformers not follow the decisions the Church made when She was still supposedly true?

Who told the Protestant reformers that the books they removed from the Bible were not legitimate and by what authority did they remove them? Some Protestant reformers claim some books were rejected because they were not in Hebrew or Chaldaic, though some other books that were kept by the Protestant reformers were not in these languages either, so this excuse cannot be used. And where is it found in Scripture that they should be written in a certain language?


To say that some books were not accepted because they were not accepted by the Jews does not apply to the point at hand either. The Catholic Church holds the books of Machabees and others mentioned above as Canonical, and if she was the true Church when She determined this, then this is what must be believed. Because the Jews did not accept the deutero-canonical books does not effect the fact that the early Christian Church accepted them. Where in Scripture does it say the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the Sacred Books as the Mosaic may have had?


Why do the Protestant reformers call parts of Scripture false when the whole of antiquity has held them as articles of faith? We see many writers from the first three centuries including St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian and many others all allude to the deutero-canonical books we mention above. Who gave the reformers the direction to declare these books false? For example, the book of Judith was made authoritative by the Council of Nice, when the Church was never greater or more solemn. Why blatantly defy the decisions of this council?


Of those reformers who claim their decisions to strike books from the Canon are from the Holy Ghost, we ask that you please show proof. Why would the Holy Ghost suddenly give inspirations as to what everyone must believe to unknown men like Luther and Calvin, after they abandoned the Councils and the entire Church? Shall we simply believe the reformers at their word? How then do we believe or not believe the next person who also claims the same inspiration? If the Protestant reformers were inspired, then God would clearly show the world a sign like with others inspired in Scripture, but a sign the reformers have not shown so they are not to be believed.


If God had revealed something a thousand times over to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless God gave us such an undeniable sign that we could no longer call it into question. How else are we to separate the false prophet from the true prophet? If we were obliged to believe everyone claiming internal revelations, we would soon be swamped with deceivers and would be completely lost.


Where did the Protestant reformers come up with the exact list of books in the Canon they choose to follow? Who told them which books should be included or removed? It was not the Jews that told them as the Gospels would not be there. It was not from the Council of Laodicea for the Apocalypse would be in it. It was not from the Council of Carthage or Florence for Ecclesiasticus and Machabees would be included. So where did the reformers decide on their specific list of books to include? No such Canon was used before the Protestant reformation as the many Protestant denominations use now. What is the likelihood that the Holy Spirit hid for the first 1400+ years of the Church, then revealed a new Canon to two unknown men, namely Luther and Calvin?

The Protestant reformers have taken away many books from the original Scriptures such as Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom and both books of Machabees. In the ancient Church there was originally some doubt about some books being inspired and no doubt about many others, yet the Protestant reformers have accepted some of the doubtful and cast out some that were never doubtful. So why were the specific set of books cut from the Scriptures by the Protestant reformers other than that the doctrine of some were hard for them to accept? The reformers do not give a logical answer for their striking some books from the Canon and it is clear that they were simply contradicting the Church. It just so happens that the contents of the books of Machabees contains doctrine on the intercession of Saints and prayers for the departed and Ecclesiasticus contains doctrine on the honor of relics, which is doctrine that just so happens to be accepted by the Catholic Church and denied by the reformers. Remember, it was the Catholic Church in Her early days (when She was the True Church according to the Protestant reformers) that received the books Machabees as canonical along with the other books of Scripture. So why defy the Church on just Machabees?
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#56
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)

Actually, it is the Catholic Church
But NOT the Roman Catholic church. The original Catholic church was made up of independent churches which had no pope and no central leadership and brought their ideas forward for discussion,

who, through Her early Councils, originally confirmed which books of the Bible were considered inspired, and which books were to be included in the Canon of the Bible itself.
LOL the councils agreed differing lists at different times,

This was essential to assure copies of Scripture had in those days agreed with the originals, and also to weed out books which contained heretical doctrine in them. The Catholic Church confirmed the books (the Canon) of the Bible in the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) when, according to the Protestant reformers, She was still the true Church.
By 393 BC the 'Catholic church' was not seen as the true church but as a conglomeration of churches with different views, some true some false.

The Catholic Church also confirmed the same Canon at the Council of Florence (1441) and Council of Trent centuries later and have used the same Canon ever since the Council of Hippo in 393.
This was the ROMAN Catholic church which was very different organisation from 'the Catholic church' at the early councils

How then did the Protestant reformers remove so many books (i.e. Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Machabees, Wisdom etc) from the Old and New Testaments if it was the true Church that ruled they were Canonical?
Because they recognised that in our Lord's time they were available but Jesus NEVER confirmed them. HE only vouched for the Jewish canon of the Law the Prophets and the Psalms and ignored your extra-canonical books as listed. And we can see why.

If the Protestant reformers truly thought the Catholic Church was the true Church at one time then later fell into error, why do the reformers not follow the decisions the Church made when She was still supposedly true?
But they recognised that the churches kept coming to different decisions and never finally agreed them.

Who told the Protestant reformers that the books they removed from the Bible were not legitimate and by what authority did they remove them?
Actually the Holy Spirit.:) Following Jesus,
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,370
113
#57
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day“.John 6:55

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” John 6:54

If it is a matter of indifference what a man believes, assuming he is a “decent person” then it was absolutely useless for God to make any revelation. If someone is free to reject what God reveals, what purpose was it for Christ to send forth His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if those nations can freely believe whatever they desire? This would be insulting to the very nature of God. If God makes a point to reveal something through Divine Revelation (by miracle or prophecy) He wants it to be believed. Mankind is bound by his conscience among other things, to believe what God has revealed. Man is also bound to worship God with his reason and intellect along with his heart and will. God owns everything He has given us, we are only stewards of these gifts in our lives and are to use them for His glory alone and not ours. There should be no man and certainly not a Christian who rightly asserts that we are not bound to believe what God has has revealed and taught. This religious indifferentism (more in a later writing), is heretical to everything Christ has put before us as our God, and is a rejection of the one true religion revealed by Him.
True Faith as stated by the majority of Protestants, is to believe in the Lord Jesus. Catholics agree with this as well, they share the belief that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and that we must believe all that He has revealed and taught us to have True Faith. Without which, there is no salvation, no hope of Heaven, and eternal damnation as we have Jesus’ own words for it. If Jesus under that pains of Hell commands me to believe what He has taught, then He must provide a means in which to learn and understand His teachings. This has to be a means that is present at all times, through all ages, and to every type of person smart or ignorant, all over the world. This means must teach without error, because if it did not, it would surely not be a means for salvation at all. Both Catholics and Protestants state that Christ has provided such a means, but where they differ is the means in and of itself. Protestants state it is the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible, while Catholics state it is the Church of the Living God.

Suppose God had intended for mankind to learn His religion from a book. Would not have Jesus given us all books? Perhaps, He would have instructed His Apostles to “write Bibles and give them to everyone so they can figure out what works best for their salvation.” Instead Christ said, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” If Christ had stated the former, there would have been no Christianity, just confusion. As we can see from history however, THAT did not start happening until the 16th century. Ever since then, religion after religion, and church after church popped up all fighting against each other due to private interpretations of the Bible.

Christ never even gave His Apostles the command to write anything down. They went forth and preached everywhere, planted the Church of God throughout the earth, never writing during Our Lord’s time on Earth.

1.) St. Matthew – wrote about 7 years after Christ left the Earth for the benefit of a few people. So there was a Church that had already existed for 7 years prior to that.

2.) St. Mark – wrote about 10 years after Christ.

3.) St. Luke – wrote about 25 years after Christ.

4.) St. John – wrote about 63 years after Christ. And he wrote the last portion of what is in the Bible, the Book of Revalation, about 65 years after Christ. So the Catholic (comes from Hebrew “Catholo” or universal), Church had existed for 65 years prior to this point.

If anyone during anytime was to be considered Christian, it was these direct followers of Jesus Christ Himself. They were the pillars on which Christ built His Church. How were they suppose to know how to achieve salvation if they were in the process of writing parts of the Bible? Would Jesus have left His Church 65 years without a teacher if the Bible is suppose to be that? The answer is no, God would not do that. Out of these men, maybe St. John read the Bible, but no other did, everyone of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus Christ. They knew how to save their souls just as true Catholics do today, from the teachings of the Church of God.

For over 300 years the Church that Christ established at the Last Supper spread itself all over the world without the Bible. No one even knew what books constituted the Bible at this time. During the time of the Apostles many false gospels and epistles were being spread. Gospels such as Simon, Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabus, and the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus were all being spread amongst people who had no way of knowing which were truly inspired and which were false. Even those more learned disputed their validity.

In the 4th century the Pope of Rome, Head of the Church, succesor of St. Peter, brought together all the Bishops of the world into a council. The decision was made to decide which books constituted the Bible which is how we Catholics have it now. The Gospels that did not display sufficient evidence of Divine Inspiration from the Holy Ghost were rejected. Until this point in history the Bible was unknown to the whole world. There was no Bible to guide anyone. It is impossible to believe that Christ would leave the human race without a book for salvation if that was His intended means to learn His religion. And not just for 300 years was the Christian world left without the Bible but for over 1400 years!

The printing press was invented in the middle of the 1400s, about 100 years before there was a Protestant in the world. Before the printing press was invented, Bibles were rare and costly things. Historians will tell you that only about 1,000 years ago, Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a fortune for one to buy himself a copy. Everything had to be written by hand with pen, upon parchment or sheepskin. It was very tedious, slow, and costly. Historians also state that it took approximately 20 years to hand copy a Bible, if someone were paid even just a dollar a day that would amount $8,000. With todays standards of minimum wage that would be well over $300,000! How could people afford such a thing so necessary to the salvation of their souls? Before printing it is estimated that not even 1 in 20,000 people owned a copy of the Bible. Why would Jesus make it so hard for men if He intended for the Bible to be the end all be all for eternal salvation?

Supposing that every person did have a Bible, what good would it do those who could not read? As the Bible was also written in Greek or Hebrew, what good would it do for someone who could not understand these languages? Even as today it is translated into English, French, and many other languages; how are we to know whether or not these translations are faithful to the original text? If they are not, then it is no longer the Word of God but a false translation. Most people have to depend on the opinions of the learned. But if learned opinions vary and often contradict one another on how the Word of God is to be translated, than who is correct? There are a great number of Protestant layman, preachers, and bishops, who have written whole volumes on errors contained in different versions, the King James Version alone is said to have over 30,000 errors. How can one be so sure of eternal salvation with 30,000 errors?

Assuming the problem of unfaithful translations is completely out of the picture, and everyone had enough money to procure faithful translations of the Word of God for use in private interpretation; who’s interpretation is correct? How are you to save your soul if you hesitate and doubt certain people’s interpretation of Scripture? Throughout the world there are over 350 different denominations or churches that all state the Bible is their guide and teacher. However, just as truth is one, God is one, there can be no contradiction. Protestants state that the man who reads the Bible right and prayerfully has truth, and they all say they read it right.

Scenario:

Let us suppose there is an Episcopal minister. He is a sincere, honest,, well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in prayerful spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he concludes that it is clear there must be Bishops. For without Bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well-meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. “Here is the Bible to give you the lie,” says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in. He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. “Well,” says the Baptist, “have you ever been baptized?” “I was,” says the Episcopalian, “when I was a baby.” “And so was I,” says the Presbyterian, “when I was a baby.” “But,” says the Baptist, “you are going to Hell as sure as you live.”

Next comes the Unitatrian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere. “Well,” says the Unitarian, “allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolators. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all.” And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And all of them contend that they have the true version of the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, “My friends, have you got any religion at all?” “Of course we have,” they say. “Did you ever feel religion,” says the Methodist, “the spirit of God moving within you?” “Nonsense,” says the Presbyterian, “we are guided by our reason and judgement.” “Well,” says the Methodist, “if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity.”

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with external hellfire. “Why,” says he, “you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children,” and he proves it from the Bible.

And now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says, “Baptize the men and leave the women alone. For the Bible says, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. “So,” says he, “the women are all right, but baptize the men.”

Next comes in the Shaker and he says, “You are presumptuous people. Do you know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. My brethren, if you want to go to Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!”

End

So in this scenario we see seven or eight different denominations, all differing from each other as to what is essential for salvation. All using whatever version of the Bible, illustrative private interpretation to justify their reasoning, and opinions. What if one were to bring over 350 different denominations that exist in the world? All taking the Bible as their guide and teacher, and all differing from each other. Are they all right? Some believe in Hell, some do not. Some believe Christ is God, others do not. Some believe Baptism is essential, some do not. All cannot be true.

Who, then, is correct? He who has the true meaning of the Bible? The Bible never tells us who holds the true meaning, it never settles that quarrel because it is not the teacher. The Bible is a good book, we Catholics admit the Bible is the inspired word of God (Jesus being the actual Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us), the language of inspiration, but your explanation of the Bible is not the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired, for surely you do not pretend to inspired!

When the Constitution in the United States was established George Washington did not say, “Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself. Let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution.” If Washington had done that, there would have never been a United States, it would have been a Divided States. Instead the Constitution along with Supreme Law, was given to the American people. A Supreme Court and Judges were appointed to provide the true explanation of the Constitution for everyone from President to homeless Veteran. In fact its a three tier check and balance system (3 is a good number, remanant of The Blessed Trinity), if anyone takes the Constitution and laws into their own hands and are not kept in check, anarchy ensues.

Every government is of this way, a Constitution and a Supreme Court or Judge that gives the meaning of this Constitution. Someone visible that you can go to, lay complaints or questions before. Our Divine Lord established His Supreme Court, His Supreme Judge, “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) It gives us the true meaning of Scriptures, The Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that His Court is infallible, and therefore, the TRUE Catholic never doubts.

“I believe,” says the Catholic, “because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God commanded me to believe her.” Jesus said: “Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matthew 18:17) “He that believeth you believeth Me. He that despiseth you despiseth Me.” (Luke 10:) Sadly everyone despises the Church nowadays and there has always been great adversity towards it. The Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.

Protestants say, “We believe in the Bible.” They understand it to the best of their opinions as those who came before them (most broke off from the Church for some personal gain), and use private interpretation. This is only a testimony of man, therefore it is only human faith, not Divine Faith or taking God’s Word for something. It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinte wisdom and veracity. That adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.
So you believe that writing bible is violation?

that mean Matthew, mark, John were violate God will, why you quite same verse, that mean you partaker of they violation.

now catholic also have the Bible, are they violate the will of God too?

this believe is a lie, they do not want people study the Bible so it is easier to lie.

for example they want to make money, than sale forgiveness certificate. It is impossible if every body know Bible.
 
Oct 8, 2017
26
0
0
#58
But NOT the Roman Catholic church. The original Catholic church was made up of independent churches which had no pope and no central leadership and brought their ideas forward for discussion,



LOL the councils agreed differing lists at different times,



By 393 BC the 'Catholic church' was not seen as the true church but as a conglomeration of churches with different views, some true some false.



This was the ROMAN Catholic church which was very different organisation from 'the Catholic church' at the early councils



Because they recognised that in our Lord's time they were available but Jesus NEVER confirmed them. HE only vouched for the Jewish canon of the Law the Prophets and the Psalms and ignored your extra-canonical books as listed. And we can see why.



But they recognised that the churches kept coming to different decisions and never finally agreed them.



Actually the Holy Spirit.:) Following Jesus,
I suggest a copy of sources of Catholic Dogma - Denzinger. Your version of history is a little off as compared to reality. It isn't like the Bible where you can pick a portion of it, take it out of context, and put your own spin on it to conform to your opinions. Sorry.