I want to understand the Catholic faith so....
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
K
Just because Catholicism has been around longer then most to all denominations, which can not actually be proven as documentation gets hard to come by before the 1600's when it comes to tracing denominations beginnings.
Take the Baptist church for instance as it can be traced back to the first Baptist church in America in the 1600's, but it existed over in Europe for many years before that. There is even some documentation that is debated over that takes it back to the 3rd and 4th centuries as well.
Still with that being said how long your church denomination has been around should never be used as a debating point, because length of existence nor number of members constitutes teaching truth !!!
There is a reason the other denominations took off and that is because of the church following into apostasy, as can be shown by such history study on individuals like Augustine and what he taught. His eternal security doctrine started in the 4th century states a number of things contradictory to what the Apostle Paul said !!!
Take the Baptist church for instance as it can be traced back to the first Baptist church in America in the 1600's, but it existed over in Europe for many years before that. There is even some documentation that is debated over that takes it back to the 3rd and 4th centuries as well.
Still with that being said how long your church denomination has been around should never be used as a debating point, because length of existence nor number of members constitutes teaching truth !!!
There is a reason the other denominations took off and that is because of the church following into apostasy, as can be shown by such history study on individuals like Augustine and what he taught. His eternal security doctrine started in the 4th century states a number of things contradictory to what the Apostle Paul said !!!
K
Also wanted to add as another told you please get over thinking that we do not honor or give respect for what Mary did in doing God's will in her life, as we do.
We just do not elevate her above other believers as your church does as all believers are blessed for doing God's will, as we are all commanded to do. For Jesus says only those who does the will of God will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Nowhere does it say to pray to her or bow down and worship at a statue of her <-----Which is a violation/transgression of the 2nd Commandment !!!
You give her lip service when it can't be avoided, like nativity scenes at Christmas time. That's what your "honor" amounts to. All the Catholic bashing in here proves that much. It's BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. You won't find her proper title in your literature or sermons.
God honored her first. She is to be honored above other believers, what do you think "blessed are you among women" means??? You deny scriptures as well as the foreshadowing of the Ark of the Covenant.
The disdain for anything physical for religious usage likens to the Gnostic heresy. This cheap charge has been addressed in this forum at least 100 times. It's like talking to a wall.
Do Catholics Worship Statues? | Catholic Answers
Scripture Catholic - IMAGES AND STATUES, RELICS & HOLY WATER
God honored her first. She is to be honored above other believers, what do you think "blessed are you among women" means??? You deny scriptures as well as the foreshadowing of the Ark of the Covenant.
The disdain for anything physical for religious usage likens to the Gnostic heresy. This cheap charge has been addressed in this forum at least 100 times. It's like talking to a wall.
Do Catholics Worship Statues? | Catholic Answers
Scripture Catholic - IMAGES AND STATUES, RELICS & HOLY WATER
K
First we are not commanded to do anything more then acknowledge what she has done, for she is not to be put in the same stance as the Lord Jesus Himself.
Second there are other women in the bible that were called blessed to, as well as other believers were as Jesus even called the poor and meek at heart blessed as well. Abraham, Noah, and others were blessed well before Mary was !!!
Third bowing down to/in front of a statue is worshiping it, no matter how much the Catholic church wants to ignore that fact it is worship.
When John bowed down to the angel in Revelation he was told do not do that, to bow down to God alone as He is the only One to worship.
There are enough pictures showing the Pope and other Catholic's bowing down in front of statue's of Mary.....That is idol worship !!!
Therefore you can address it 1 Million times in trying to deny it, but if it keeps taking place it is a faulty argument.
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
"Ancient Baptists" and other Myths by a patristic scholar.
Agreed. Truth comes from the Father, who gave it to Christ, who gave it to the Apostles, who handed down this tradition to a succeeding episcopate that you want no part of that compiled the Bible that Protestantism wrenched from the Church where it came from.
Augustine never taught eternal security and none of the Church Fathers were remotely Protestant. That's why you don't like them.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
"Ancient Baptists" and other Myths by a patristic scholar.
Agreed. Truth comes from the Father, who gave it to Christ, who gave it to the Apostles, who handed down this tradition to a succeeding episcopate that you want no part of that compiled the Bible that Protestantism wrenched from the Church where it came from.
Augustine never taught eternal security and none of the Church Fathers were remotely Protestant. That's why you don't like them.
In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.
But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil andPaulician heretics.
Theodoreof Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.
Protestantism the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.
But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period.The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.
By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.
Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.
The reformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used 'safely' in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.
Bottomline: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.
The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.
Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:
This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. What's great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.
But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil andPaulician heretics.
Theodoreof Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.
Protestantism the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.
But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period.The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.
By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.
Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.
The reformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used 'safely' in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.
Bottomline: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.
The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.
Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:
2Cor3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. What's great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.
Heretics try to limit mystery. When I talk to some (not all) Protestants, they tend to rationalize everything. When I look at Protestant doctrine, I do not see development, but reductionism.
They tried to reduce "faith" without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person's status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I'm not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.
When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God without producing divinity, they reject it.
If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.
My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn't it?
The Antiochene "method" was abstracted from their whole system.What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith.Many were seduced by the Antiochene "method" because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the ‘reformers’and their descendants have fallen into that trap.
There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian "method"as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less attraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.
Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene "method" leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR}philosophy." Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.
They tried to reduce "faith" without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person's status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I'm not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.
When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God without producing divinity, they reject it.
If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.
My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn't it?
The Antiochene "method" was abstracted from their whole system.What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith.Many were seduced by the Antiochene "method" because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the ‘reformers’and their descendants have fallen into that trap.
There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian "method"as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less attraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.
Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene "method" leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR}philosophy." Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.
K
Epostle you need to get away from what the Catholic church is teaching, and also be careful using wikipedia as well as that source is unreliable as well.
The dates you gave are questionable dates on most of them, and I told you how the Baptist church can be traced back before the 1600's and Joseph Smith. You gave a link from a Catholic website where of course would give false information on other denominations.
Funny how Catholic's do the same they accuse others of doing !!!
Then you say you agree that how long a church or how many members does not constitute truth, yet you then go as to try and defend the Catholic church about bringing up apostolic succession.
I for one am not like others who believe the line of apostles has ended, because I don't believe they had to personally walk with Jesus and see Him to be an apostle as others teach. For there are other people mentioned in the scriptures that are called apostles that were not placed in that position tell some time after Jesus ascension.
Such as Barnabas, Timothy, Silvanus, and how about Matthias who was appointed to take Judas place !!!
However with that being said I do not believe this possession in the body is not bound to one denominational church, as it is part of the whole body of believers (Church).
Last of all Augustine did preach eternal security as he started the doctrine in the 4th century, and his "Perseverance of the Saints" is also called the eternal security doctrine !!!
This can easily be research in studies...........
The dates you gave are questionable dates on most of them, and I told you how the Baptist church can be traced back before the 1600's and Joseph Smith. You gave a link from a Catholic website where of course would give false information on other denominations.
Funny how Catholic's do the same they accuse others of doing !!!
Then you say you agree that how long a church or how many members does not constitute truth, yet you then go as to try and defend the Catholic church about bringing up apostolic succession.
I for one am not like others who believe the line of apostles has ended, because I don't believe they had to personally walk with Jesus and see Him to be an apostle as others teach. For there are other people mentioned in the scriptures that are called apostles that were not placed in that position tell some time after Jesus ascension.
Such as Barnabas, Timothy, Silvanus, and how about Matthias who was appointed to take Judas place !!!
However with that being said I do not believe this possession in the body is not bound to one denominational church, as it is part of the whole body of believers (Church).
Last of all Augustine did preach eternal security as he started the doctrine in the 4th century, and his "Perseverance of the Saints" is also called the eternal security doctrine !!!
This can easily be research in studies...........
keep up the lies and I will have to put you in my ignorasium where you can play with the Whore duh Babble-on psychos.
Prove, by scripture, they were all given the title/description "Full of Grace."
John was bowing in the context of worship, and was corrected.
Because you refuse to accept that not all bowing is worship.
Deut. 5:9 - God's command, "you shall not bow down to them" means "do not worship them." But not all bowing is worship. Here God's command is connected to false worship.
Rev. 3:9 - Jesus said people would bow down before the faithful members of the church of Philadelphia. This bowing before the faithful is not worship, just as kissing a picture of a family member is not worship.
Gen. 19:1 - Lot bowed down to the ground in veneration before two angels in Sodom.
Gen. 24:52 - Abraham's servant bowed himself to the earth before the Lord.
Gen. 42:6 - Joseph's brothers bow before Joseph with the face to the ground.
Jos. 5:14 - Joshua fell to the ground prostrate in veneration before an angel.
1 Sam. 28:14 - Saul bows down before Samuel with his face to the ground in honor and veneration.
1 Kings 1:23 - the prophet Nathan bows down before King David.
2 Kings 2:15 - the sons of the prophets bow down to Elisha at Jericho.
1 Chron. 21:21 - Ornan the Jebusite did obeisance to king David with his face to the ground.
1 Chron. 29:20 - Israelites bowed down to worship God and give honor to the king.
2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.
Psalm 138:2 - David bows down before God's Holy Temple.
Dan. 2:46 - the king fell down on his face paying homage to Daniel and commands that an offering be made to him.
Dan. 8:17 - Daniel fell down prostrate in veneration before the angel Gabriel.
It's not me with the faulty argument. Sadly, no amount of scriptures or reasonable explanation can cut through blind prejudice, which is why you will repeat the same false idiotic charge.
Don't ever visit Japan.
Prove, by scripture, they were all given the title/description "Full of Grace."
John was bowing in the context of worship, and was corrected.
Because you refuse to accept that not all bowing is worship.
Deut. 5:9 - God's command, "you shall not bow down to them" means "do not worship them." But not all bowing is worship. Here God's command is connected to false worship.
Rev. 3:9 - Jesus said people would bow down before the faithful members of the church of Philadelphia. This bowing before the faithful is not worship, just as kissing a picture of a family member is not worship.
Gen. 19:1 - Lot bowed down to the ground in veneration before two angels in Sodom.
Gen. 24:52 - Abraham's servant bowed himself to the earth before the Lord.
Gen. 42:6 - Joseph's brothers bow before Joseph with the face to the ground.
Jos. 5:14 - Joshua fell to the ground prostrate in veneration before an angel.
1 Sam. 28:14 - Saul bows down before Samuel with his face to the ground in honor and veneration.
1 Kings 1:23 - the prophet Nathan bows down before King David.
2 Kings 2:15 - the sons of the prophets bow down to Elisha at Jericho.
1 Chron. 21:21 - Ornan the Jebusite did obeisance to king David with his face to the ground.
1 Chron. 29:20 - Israelites bowed down to worship God and give honor to the king.
2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.
Psalm 138:2 - David bows down before God's Holy Temple.
Dan. 2:46 - the king fell down on his face paying homage to Daniel and commands that an offering be made to him.
Dan. 8:17 - Daniel fell down prostrate in veneration before the angel Gabriel.
It's not me with the faulty argument. Sadly, no amount of scriptures or reasonable explanation can cut through blind prejudice, which is why you will repeat the same false idiotic charge.
Don't ever visit Japan.
K
None of your scriptures refer to allowing the bowing down before statues, which is a transgression of the second commandment.
Do you not see how those scriptures you give does not prove your point ???
And again just because the scripture's shows them doing this to other people or angels does it make it right, or should we go by what is said in Revelation that it is not ??? The scriptures show people sinning also, does this mean sin is okay to do ??? No it does not so this is where discernment needs to take place !!!
What lies have I said as show me one scripture that says Mary is to be placed and treated as highly as Jesus ???
Show me where we are to pray to past saints ???
Praying for somebody is different then praying to somebody....................................
The failure is to not discern the scriptures properly but believe how your church has told you to interpret the scriptures instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to do this !!!
Also the other thing is not all people who are not Catholic are not Protestant, that is another lie from the Catholic church.
Do you not see how those scriptures you give does not prove your point ???
And again just because the scripture's shows them doing this to other people or angels does it make it right, or should we go by what is said in Revelation that it is not ??? The scriptures show people sinning also, does this mean sin is okay to do ??? No it does not so this is where discernment needs to take place !!!
What lies have I said as show me one scripture that says Mary is to be placed and treated as highly as Jesus ???
Show me where we are to pray to past saints ???
Praying for somebody is different then praying to somebody....................................
The failure is to not discern the scriptures properly but believe how your church has told you to interpret the scriptures instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to do this !!!
Also the other thing is not all people who are not Catholic are not Protestant, that is another lie from the Catholic church.
Sadly for epostle, as with many Roman Catholics, no amount of Scripture or reasonable explanation can cut through their blind prejudice, which is why they endlessly repeat the same heresies and lies promulgated by their church. Their loyalty to the traditions of man are greater than their love of God and His Holy Living life-giving Word.
K
To add Revelation 3:9's bowing down and worshiping is not to be taken as they are bowing down and worshiping those people of the church in Philadelphia. If that is what you take from that scripture that is a false rendering, as that would contradict Revelation 22:9 and the Word of God can not contradict !!!
Also the 7 churches spoken of are located in Turkey...............
Also the 7 churches spoken of are located in Turkey...............
K
This is why some, not all, Catholic's can be talked to because they think any time another person tries to show them the truth in God's word compared to what they have been taught they think it is always done in prejudice and hate for their church.
They do not want to understand this is done in love, for if we did not love them we would just leave them be in the doctrine that is taught and not attempt to show them the truth.
The bible says there is no private interpretation of His word, but by placing what the church says as truth instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to guide one in it that makes a private interpretation.
I am in a Baptist church and when I listen to the sermon's I don't sit there and just take everything the pastor says as truth, as I test it with the Word of God and the Holy Spirit to see if it is accurate.
No man has the right to change, add, or take away from the Word of God; This is clearly stated by God Himself !!!
They do not want to understand this is done in love, for if we did not love them we would just leave them be in the doctrine that is taught and not attempt to show them the truth.
The bible says there is no private interpretation of His word, but by placing what the church says as truth instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to guide one in it that makes a private interpretation.
I am in a Baptist church and when I listen to the sermon's I don't sit there and just take everything the pastor says as truth, as I test it with the Word of God and the Holy Spirit to see if it is accurate.
No man has the right to change, add, or take away from the Word of God; This is clearly stated by God Himself !!!
Chilliwack comes to mind...
And now you are both 1. engaging in deliberate falsehood and 2. displaying a lack of intellectual integrity.
For example, epostle has made several posts showing the INTERPRETATION of SCRIPTURE behind various doctrines which you find offensive. Your response: "I can't be bothered with your WALL OF TEXT."
In other words: Owie, owie...reading and actual scholarship hurt me.
You might not like the doctrines of the RCC...and you need not. But the claim that they are not based on scripture is simply false. You know it is possible to engage with an accurate understanding and still disagree. It's possible to acknowledge that the RCC has used scripture when developing their theological views and say, "Well, I disagree with their interpretation of scripture OR This interpretation is false because of ___"
But here's my ultimate point. Why posit some kind of doctrinal superiority when you can't even be bothered to agree amongst yourselves?
It's all "sola scriptura," but there's no unity of understanding amongst non-Catholics. So, apparently it's not SCRIPTURE alone, it's "My interpretation of scripture alone."
All you need to do is go visit the WoF and OSAS boards. People hotly debate these ideas. People assert two opposing interpretations of scripture. Both cannot be right. (Btw, If you actually READ my original comment, you'd notice that I criticized no particular doctrine. I merely pointed out that strong disagreements exist amongst people who want to make claims of superior understanding of doctrine).
While there is ONE perfect understanding of scripture, only GOD has it. The rest of us "see as through a glass darkly" (KJV) or "see but a dim reflection" (NIV).
The fact that you are presented with information and yet continue to engage in spin and propaganda says more about you and your lack of intellectual integrity than it says about the RCC.
For example, epostle has made several posts showing the INTERPRETATION of SCRIPTURE behind various doctrines which you find offensive. Your response: "I can't be bothered with your WALL OF TEXT."
In other words: Owie, owie...reading and actual scholarship hurt me.
You might not like the doctrines of the RCC...and you need not. But the claim that they are not based on scripture is simply false. You know it is possible to engage with an accurate understanding and still disagree. It's possible to acknowledge that the RCC has used scripture when developing their theological views and say, "Well, I disagree with their interpretation of scripture OR This interpretation is false because of ___"
But here's my ultimate point. Why posit some kind of doctrinal superiority when you can't even be bothered to agree amongst yourselves?
It's all "sola scriptura," but there's no unity of understanding amongst non-Catholics. So, apparently it's not SCRIPTURE alone, it's "My interpretation of scripture alone."
All you need to do is go visit the WoF and OSAS boards. People hotly debate these ideas. People assert two opposing interpretations of scripture. Both cannot be right. (Btw, If you actually READ my original comment, you'd notice that I criticized no particular doctrine. I merely pointed out that strong disagreements exist amongst people who want to make claims of superior understanding of doctrine).
While there is ONE perfect understanding of scripture, only GOD has it. The rest of us "see as through a glass darkly" (KJV) or "see but a dim reflection" (NIV).
The fact that you are presented with information and yet continue to engage in spin and propaganda says more about you and your lack of intellectual integrity than it says about the RCC.
Here's what I find interesting. You claim that we should question the "truth" that people present to us. This implies that we have the ability to examine various "truths" and come to a conclusion based on the work of the Holy Spirit within us. In fact, you claim that you exercise this when you listen to the sermons of your Baptist preacher.
So, what if the people who are Catholic are doing EXACTLY what you say and simply not agreeing with YOUR interpretation of scripture?
Whoa! (You might claim) MY understanding is THE TRUTH.
Wait...you just claimed that we should question it.
Whoa! (You might continue) My understanding is BASED ON SCRIPTURE.
So, I'm guessing, is the understanding of your pastor, and the doctrines of the RCC.
The charge that is continually posited by non-Catholics regarding Catholic belief is that our refusal to accede to non-Catholic understanding is evidence that we are hard-hearted or lack the Holy Spirit. In other words, you're claiming that your understanding is TRUTH and our inability to see and bow to your understanding means we LACK THE TRUTH.
Whoa! (You're likely saying) It's not about ME, it's about the SCRIPTURES.
Really? Is this why you cannot agree amongst yourselves? Because scripture is so clear?
Here's the reality. There are Catholics who have unexamined faith. Just like there are non-Catholics (and non-Christians for that matter) who have unexamined faith of some sort. However, it's pretty uppity to presume that Catholics who clearly understand and can defend their own beliefs and interpretations are simply hard-hearted or lacking in Godly understanding. We are doing EXACTLY what you advocate people to do. We are examining YOUR claims about scripture in light of what scripture actually says. We (clearly) draw a different conclusion than what you draw, but the implication that we do so because we're too stupid, or spiritually lacking, or too whatever, etc. isn't fair.
You claim that people speak these things to Catholics in love...(and clearly the personal attacks on the board show otherwise. But let's just pretend that it's all done out of love). Isn't it possible that we lovingly reject your interpretation?
It's funny to me how non-Catholics are a bit like the stereotypical Americans presented in those "fish out of water" movies. They arrive at a foreign place speaking English. When it seems they are not understood they speak louder and louder and louder, only to discover that the foreigner understood English all along.
In other words, we get it. We get that your interpretation of scripture is different. We get that you prefer your interpretation to our interpretation. I actually haven't seen anyone trying claiming everyone should bow to the RCC interpretation. What I've seen is people presenting the RCC interpretation. People showing the scripture that supports the RCC interpretation...followed by a lot of yelling because it's presumed that we don't speak "bible."
So, what if the people who are Catholic are doing EXACTLY what you say and simply not agreeing with YOUR interpretation of scripture?
Whoa! (You might claim) MY understanding is THE TRUTH.
Wait...you just claimed that we should question it.
Whoa! (You might continue) My understanding is BASED ON SCRIPTURE.
So, I'm guessing, is the understanding of your pastor, and the doctrines of the RCC.
The charge that is continually posited by non-Catholics regarding Catholic belief is that our refusal to accede to non-Catholic understanding is evidence that we are hard-hearted or lack the Holy Spirit. In other words, you're claiming that your understanding is TRUTH and our inability to see and bow to your understanding means we LACK THE TRUTH.
Whoa! (You're likely saying) It's not about ME, it's about the SCRIPTURES.
Really? Is this why you cannot agree amongst yourselves? Because scripture is so clear?
Here's the reality. There are Catholics who have unexamined faith. Just like there are non-Catholics (and non-Christians for that matter) who have unexamined faith of some sort. However, it's pretty uppity to presume that Catholics who clearly understand and can defend their own beliefs and interpretations are simply hard-hearted or lacking in Godly understanding. We are doing EXACTLY what you advocate people to do. We are examining YOUR claims about scripture in light of what scripture actually says. We (clearly) draw a different conclusion than what you draw, but the implication that we do so because we're too stupid, or spiritually lacking, or too whatever, etc. isn't fair.
You claim that people speak these things to Catholics in love...(and clearly the personal attacks on the board show otherwise. But let's just pretend that it's all done out of love). Isn't it possible that we lovingly reject your interpretation?
It's funny to me how non-Catholics are a bit like the stereotypical Americans presented in those "fish out of water" movies. They arrive at a foreign place speaking English. When it seems they are not understood they speak louder and louder and louder, only to discover that the foreigner understood English all along.
In other words, we get it. We get that your interpretation of scripture is different. We get that you prefer your interpretation to our interpretation. I actually haven't seen anyone trying claiming everyone should bow to the RCC interpretation. What I've seen is people presenting the RCC interpretation. People showing the scripture that supports the RCC interpretation...followed by a lot of yelling because it's presumed that we don't speak "bible."
K
PoetMary I am not claiming nothing as I am stating exactly what the Word of God says that the Holy Spirit was sent to do in our lives.
We can tell if a person is listening to man and not the Word of God and the Holy Spirit if what they say does not align with the scriptures.
I was in the Catholic church and took the RCIA classes so I am not coming from an outside point of view, as I have internal knowledge of what and how they teach.
People can not agree because they put self and man made understanding before the Truth in God's Word. They put man made teaching systems above and before the Holy Spirit, trusting what another man has told them without testing it.
All those who are opened minded and clearly listen to the Holy Spirit, there would be no difference in doctrine because the Holy Spirit can not teach this group of 10 one thing and then teach another group of 10 something that contradicts.
Let's get one thing straight first as I can see your stance, as how you word things by saying my interpretation and your interpretation.
Problem is it is not my interpretation as I don't take credit like that, it is the Truth giving to me by the Holy Spirit. It is His teaching and leading in the Truth He has done in my life !!!
We can tell if a person is listening to man and not the Word of God and the Holy Spirit if what they say does not align with the scriptures.
I was in the Catholic church and took the RCIA classes so I am not coming from an outside point of view, as I have internal knowledge of what and how they teach.
People can not agree because they put self and man made understanding before the Truth in God's Word. They put man made teaching systems above and before the Holy Spirit, trusting what another man has told them without testing it.
All those who are opened minded and clearly listen to the Holy Spirit, there would be no difference in doctrine because the Holy Spirit can not teach this group of 10 one thing and then teach another group of 10 something that contradicts.
Let's get one thing straight first as I can see your stance, as how you word things by saying my interpretation and your interpretation.
Problem is it is not my interpretation as I don't take credit like that, it is the Truth giving to me by the Holy Spirit. It is His teaching and leading in the Truth He has done in my life !!!
Hi PoetMary,
Actually, what each believer should be doing is studying the word of God, which is the source of all truth. Therefore, regardless of who is teaching what, it should be weighed against scripture. That being said, since the RCC is teaching and practicing beliefs and rituals that are not mentioned in the word of God, such as Maryism, the ritual of the Eucharist, transubstantiation, Purgatory, indulgences, sacraments, etc., etc., then they not being found in the word of God are then deemed as false teachings. Catholics should be doing the same thing, that is, reading the word of God for themselves and if what Roman Catholicism is teaching doesn't measure up, then they should not continue in it and that goes the same for anyone who is teaching the word of God, regardless of name or denomination. We should not put our salvation and eternal life in the hands of other men or institutions. This is why each individual believer should be studying the scriptures so that we can discern through the word and the Holy Spirit who is speaking the truth and who is not.
- Status