If Perchance Catholicism Is Mistaken

  • 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.

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#81
If catholic talking about people that never hear about Jesus than say so. No need mention muslim,

It say plan of salvation include ..........muslim that worship Abraham God.

Muslim not worship Abraham God.

Abraham God teach Jesus is God

Muslim God tell mohammad Jesus is not God
Jackson, my man, here's a question.

Do Jews worship the same God that Christians do?
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#82
But protestan that I know declare bible as they doctrine foundation, catholic say bible + tradition + magister

Also catholic think they are above God, they think they produce bible.
I agree that Protestants do look to the Bible for doctrinal foundation. But again, a strange thing happens when the subject of canonicity comes up.

About who produced the Bible, how about if we look at it this way.

Who produced The book of Romans? we could say it is a product of divine inspiration from the holy Spirit. Or we could say that Paul wrote it. How about if we say that it is a product of Paul writing under the inspiration of the holy Spirit. God wrote it, Paul is the human agent through whom God delivered it to the world.

And I think the Catholic Church would say something similar. That God inspired the Bible, various people were the human agents that wrote it down on paper or papyrus, and the church was the human agency through which God delivered it to the world.

This relates especially to canonicity. Who wrote the table of contents of the Bible that you use? Of course we can say that God wrote it, but who was the human agent or agents through whom it was delivered to you?
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#83
If that book inline with over all bible teaching.
Well, that means one has to know the correct Bible teaching first before one decides which books are in the Bible.

Martin Luther had this to say about the book of James
"In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. "

So should Martin Luther have removed it from his Bible?

As another example, should this book be included in the New testament?
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#84
Was pope speaking ex cathedra


ex ca·the·dra
/ˌeks kəˈTHēdrə/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ex cathedra; adjective: ex cathedra
with the full authority of office (especially of the Pope's infallibility as defined in Roman Catholic doctrine).
"for an encyclical to be infallible the Pope must speak ex cathedra"

I think so, he is legal Pope. And speak as pope
It might be more complicated than that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

"There is debate in the Church between those who believe that infallibility is exercised rarely and explicitly and those that believe that it is common. However, the Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare."
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#85
Yes, absolutely God alone decides.

But one ought to understand there is an "alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary".
The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary is based on the historical, theological, and spiritual links in Catholic devotions between the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In the 1956 encyclical Haurietis aquas, Pope Pius XII encouraged the joint devotion to the hearts. In the 1979 encyclical Redemptor hominis, Pope John Paul II explained the theme of unity of Mary's Immaculate Heart with the Sacred Heart. In his Angelus address on 15 September 1985, John Paul II coined the term The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

So it sounds to me that if you pray to one, you are praying to both.
I hear what you are saying, I'm thankful that God is a righteous judge who was able to separate the thoughts and intentions of our hearts!
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#86
But catholic say muslim worship Abraham god
I Isked this kind of question earlier but this seems like a good place to ask it again

Do Jews worship the God of Abraham? Do Jews say that Jesus is God?
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#87
God can use human or appear to that person. If you speak Indonesian, I can show you a youtube, where a girl, her name is dini. She was in depress and ask the real God to show himself or she kill herself, Jesus appear to her and she Convert

Why I believe she not Lie?

In some muslim family like her family Convert to Christian mean disown by her family, you not welcome to stay at your parent house. Why she pretending ?

My ex neighbors now in the prison, he was Convert start with dream see Jesus.

He go to prison not because he Convert, but after he Convert he witness to taxi driver, behind him was new Convert, she make video so she can share to her muslim friend, to Convert her, but her muslim friend send to other finally to the police.

I understand It is not happen every time, most of the time God use human preacher
Right, most of the time God uses a human preacher.

So, using the example of the Lakota person above that I talked about, can they be saved? Or, will they just have to go to hell because there were no missionaries in that area 1000 years ago?
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#88
God can use human or appear to that person. If you speak Indonesian, I can show you a youtube, where a girl, her name is dini. She was in depress and ask the real God to show himself or she kill herself, Jesus appear to her and she Convert

Why I believe she not Lie?

In some muslim family like her family Convert to Christian mean disown by her family, you not welcome to stay at your parent house. Why she pretending ?

My ex neighbors now in the prison, he was Convert start with dream see Jesus.

He go to prison not because he Convert, but after he Convert he witness to taxi driver, behind him was new Convert, she make video so she can share to her muslim friend, to Convert her, but her muslim friend send to other finally to the police.

I understand It is not happen every time, most of the time God use human preacher
Also, I remember reading a long time ago about a man who was raised a devout Hindu who sought God and received a vision or maybe it was a visit from Jesus.

So yes, it does happen, but as you said it's rare. It does seem to happen in those cultures that have already had some exposure to Jesus and Christianity.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,890
26,050
113
#89
Was the pope speaking ex cathedra when he was answering those questions?
There have only been two ex cathedra proclamations, and both concern Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in following the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#90
I agree that Protestants do look to the Bible for doctrinal foundation. But again, a strange thing happens when the subject of canonicity comes up.

About who produced the Bible, how about if we look at it this way.

Who produced The book of Romans? we could say it is a product of divine inspiration from the holy Spirit. Or we could say that Paul wrote it. How about if we say that it is a product of Paul writing under the inspiration of the holy Spirit. God wrote it, Paul is the human agent through whom God delivered it to the world.

And I think the Catholic Church would say something similar. That God inspired the Bible, various people were the human agents that wrote it down on paper or papyrus, and the church was the human agency through which God delivered it to the world.

This relates especially to canonicity. Who wrote the table of contents of the Bible that you use? Of course we can say that God wrote it, but who was the human agent or agents through whom it was delivered to you?
Mainline Protestants often uses F.F. Bruces' book on Cannon which employs the Fathers. We also, that the word of the fathers and catholic church on who wrote what books, there is no other historical evidence that I know of to use. Besides, God inspired it, He did not write the Bible, least it be worshiped. A well known Protestant Church Historian Phillip Schaff quotes all early sources including the Fathers, which is why I think he is the most reliable Protestant Historian.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#91
Well, that means one has to know the correct Bible teaching first before one decides which books are in the Bible.

Martin Luther had this to say about the book of James
"In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. "

So should Martin Luther have removed it from his Bible?

As another example, should this book be included in the New testament?
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
James 2,
14 My brothers and sisters, if a person claims to have faith but does nothing, that faith is worth nothing. Faith like that cannot save anyone. 15 Suppose a brother or sister in Christ comes to you in need of clothes or something to eat. 16 And you say to them, “God be with you! I hope you stay warm and get plenty to eat,” but you don’t give them the things they need. If you don’t help them, your words are worthless. 17 It is the same with faith. If it is just faith and nothing more—if it doesn’t do anything—it is dead.

18 But someone might argue, “Some people have faith, and others have good works.” My answer would be that you can’t show me your faith if you don’t do anything. But I will show you my faith by the good I do. 19 You believe there is one God. That’s good, but even the demons believe that! And they shake with fear.

20 You fool! Faith that does nothing is worth nothing. Do you want me to prove this to you? 21 Our father Abraham was made right with God by what he did. He offered his son Isaac to God on the altar. 22 So you see that Abraham’s faith and what he did worked together. His faith was made perfect by what he did. 23 This shows the full meaning of the Scriptures that say, “Abraham believed God, and because of this faith he was accepted as one who is right with God.” Abraham was called “God’s friend.” 24 So you see that people are made right with God by what they do. They cannot be made right by faith alone.

25 Another example is Rahab. She was a prostitute, but she was made right with God by something she did. She helped those who were spying for God’s people. She welcomed them into her home and helped them escape by a different road.

26 A person’s body that does not have a spirit is dead. It is the same with faith—faith that does nothing is dead!

Ephesians 2:8-10 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
8 I mean that you have been saved by grace because you believed. You did not save yourselves; it was a gift from God. 9 You are not saved by the things you have done, so there is nothing to boast about. 10 God has made us what we are. In Christ Jesus, God made us new people so that we would spend our lives doing the good things he had already planned for us to do.

When one takes into account Eph 2:10 there really is not a conflict. If one is walking in the Holy Spirit, they have no need for The Laws because their fruit will be in line with God's Will for Us. Romans 8, Gal 5
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#92
I Isked this kind of question earlier but this seems like a good place to ask it again

Do Jews worship the God of Abraham? Do Jews say that Jesus is God?
Acts 3:13 No, God did it! He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is the God of all our fathers. He gave glory to Jesus, his special servant. But you handed him over to be killed. Pilate decided to let him go free. But you told Pilate you did not want him.

Mark 12:26 Surely you have read what God said about people rising from death. In the book where Moses wrote about the burning bush, it says that God told Moses this: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’

The real question today is, what our Jewish Brothern are depending on for Salvation.

From Jewish Encyclopedia,

"
The usual rendering in the English versions for the Hebrew words , , derivatives of the stem , which in the verb occurs only in the "nif'al" and "hif'il" forms. Other Hebrew terms translated by the corresponding forms of the English "save" and its synonyms are: (1) . This word, meaning in the "ḳal" "to live," acquires in the "pi'el" and "hif'il" the signification "to keep alive," "to save alive" (Gen. xii. 12, xix. 19, xlv. 7; Ex. i. 17, 18: Num. xxii. 33; I Sam. xxvii. 11). Ezekiel employs it to express the condition of the repentant sinner who, having escaped the penalty of sin (death), continues safe in life. (2) = "to deliver" (II Sam. xix. 9; A. V. "save "). (3) , in the "pi'el" (I Sam. xix. 11; II Sam. xix. 5; Job xx. 20). (4) = "to keep," "to spare" (Job ii. 6). (5) = "to redeem" (see Go'el). (6) = "to release."

Hosanna.
The underlying idea of all these words, save the last two, is help extended and made effective in times of need and danger, and protection from evil. "Padah" means "to free by paying ransom." "Ga'al" denotes the assumption of an obligation incumbent originally on another or in favor of another. "Yasha'" primitively means "to be or make wide." Evil and danger are always regarded as narrowing conditions or effects. From the "narrow" place the sufferer cries out. When help has come he is in a "wide" place (Ps. cxviii. 5). In battle enemies beset, surround, hem in (ib. verses 10, 11). Success in the combat relieves and removes the pressure. Hence "yasha'" and its derivatives express "victory." This is the import of the Hebrew in such passageś as Judges xv. 12; I Sam. ii. 1, xiv. 45; II Sam. xxii. 51; and Isa. xlix. 8. Combined with "rinnah," the word "yeshu'ah" signifies the jubilant cry of the victors (Ps. cxviii. 15). The passionate appeal "Hoshi'ah-nna" (ib. verse 25; = "Hosanna") ought to be rendered "Give victory," a translation all the more assured by the certainty that the psalm is Maccabean. He who leads to victory in battle, therefore, is the "moshia'" = "savior" (e.g., Othniel, in Judges iii. 9; Ehud, ib. iii. 15; Gideon, ib. vi. 36, 37; and the verb in Judges vii. 3; I Sam. xxv. 26; Ps. xliv. 4; Job xxvi. 2). But, according to the ancient concept, God Himself is the leader in battle ("Ish Milḥainah"; Ex. xv. 3). This throws light on the original bearing of the terms "savior" and "salvation" when applied to the Deity (comp. Isa. xxv. 9, xlv. 20). Language has preserved this notion in the epithet "Elohe yish'enu," which, idiomatically construed, means "our victorious God" (I Chron. xvi. 35; Ps. lxxix. 9; "thy victorious God," Isa. xvii. 10; comp. the similar construction "magen yish'aka" = "thy victorious shield," II Sam. xxii. 36; in the first three passages the A. V. has "God of our salvation" or "God of thy salvation"). Perhaps the king as the head of the army was greeted with the salutation "Hoshi'ah" = "Hosanna," corresponding to (II Kings x. 19; Neh. ii. 3). This would appear from II Kings vi. 26, the woman's apostrophe carrying with it all the greater irony if it repeated the usual greeting of respect, and the king's answer being, like that of Naomi (Ruth i. 20, 21), a clever turn of the terminology of the address. This would explain also the greeting extended to Jesus (see Hosanna) and the Messianic construction of the psalm. He was hailed thereby as "the king."

From this idea of "victory," those of help in trouble and rescue from evil are logical derivatives; but it is not impossible that even in this secondary usage of the term "salvation" the primary notion of a successful combat is operative. Evils are caused by demons: victory over them results in escape, a grateful help. Thus man is saved from trouble (Ps. xxxiv. 7, Hebr.; Isa. xxxiii. 2; Jer. xiv. 8, xxx. 7), from enemies (I Sam. iv. 3, vii. 8), from violence ("lion," Ps. xxii. 22; "men of blood,"ib. lix. 3, Hebr.), from reproach (ib. lvii. 4 [A. V. 3]), from death (ib. vi. 5, 6), from a great calamity (Jer. xxx. 7), from sin, by paying the ransom ("yifdeh"; Ps. cxxx. 8), and from uncleanness (Ezek. xxxvi. 29).
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#93
Post-Exilic Views.
The great catastrophe in Israel's history was the Exile. The prophetic doctrine concerning the remnant and the restoration readily transformed expressions for "victory" and "help" into technical terms. "Salvation" now connoted the survival (= victory) of the remnant, the return of the "saved" from exile; and God, in this new sense of the preserver of the remnant and the restorer of the new Israel, was recognized and proclaimed as the "savior" (Isa. xliii. 11; xlv. 15, 21; Zech. viii. 7). The prediction of Hosea (xiii. 4) was illustrated in the events that had come to pass, as was the assurance given by another prophet (Jer. xxx. 10, 11). In the happenings of the day Israel had learned that the Holy of Israel was the savior (Isa. xliii. 3, xlix. 26, lx. 16). Babylon had none to save her (ib. xlvii. 15).

In the Psalms "salvation," by a similar train of thought, expresses the triumph of the "poor" and of the "meek" (Ps. xii. 6). God is the "rock of salvation"; contrary to fickle man, He will not deceive (ib. lxii. 3, 7, Hebr.). By God's salvation the poor are lifted up (ib. lxix. 30). This salvation will be proclaimed from day to day (ib. xcvi. 2; comp. xcviii. 2). God is a stronghold of salvation for His anointed (ib. xxviii. 8). Under the scepter of the "anointed king" or Messiah this salvation (restoration), with all it implies of happiness, joy, security, splendor of Israel, and universal peace, would be realized. With God's judgment (which also is God's victory [], for a trial is always a combat) God's salvation approaches; and finally salvation is established in Zion for Israel, God's splendor (Isa. xlvi. 13). In this sense, then, the Messiah is a savior; his kingdom, one of salvation.

Relation to Messiah.
"Salvation" and "redemption" ("ge'ulah"), as applied in the Messianic conception, are identical. As God is the "Moshia'," so He is also the "Go'el" (Isa. xliv. 23, xlviii. 20, lii. 9, lxiii. 9; Ps. lxxiv. 2). This savior or redeemer is Yhwh (Isa. xliv. 24, xlvii. 4, xlviii. 17, lxiii. 16; Deutero-Isaiah prefers the latter term). The remnant are the "ge'ulim," redeemed of Yhwh (Isa. lxii. 12; Ps. cvii. 2). The primary idea underlying the term "ga'al," like that basic to "padah," the derivatives of which are also employed to designate those that are saved for and in this Messianic kingdom (Isa. li. 11; Zech. x. 8; Ps. xxv. 22; cxxx. 7, 8; comp. Isa. i. 27), is related to that of "yasha'" only in so far as both connote an act that results in freedom or ease to its beneficiary. The slave, for instance, might be redeemed from bondage as was Israel (Deut. xiii. 6, xxi. 8; II Sam. vii. 23; Neh. i. 10; Mic. vi. 4). The Exile was a period of captivity. By bringing home the dispersed, God was their redeemer; and in consequence Israel was saved. In ancient Israel the go'el was one upon whom had fallen the obligation to pay the honors due to a deceased kinsman; for with no son born to him a man was deprived of the filial tribute, and his name was in danger of obliteration; therefore it was the duty of the go'el, the next of kin, to raise up his name (see Levirate Marriage).

In case of murder the go'el was the Avenger of Blood. Thus even in these primitive conceptions the go'el may be said to have been a redeemer, saving men from extinction of name; also saving spirits from restlessly wandering about because deprived of funereal honors, and, in the case of the murdered, because the wrong remained unrequited ("blood for blood"). In no other sense than "avenger" may "go'el" be understood in Job xix. 25 (A. V. "redeemer"). This passage is construed by many theologians as proof of the belief in immortality, and as indicating a presentiment of Paulinian soteriology. The context, even with the corrupt Masoretic text unemendated, refutes this interpretation. The speaker is merely uttering his unshaken belief that the wrongs done him will find their avenger. Emendated the passage would read, "I know my avenger is even now alive, and later will avenge ["yiḳom"] upon [for] my dust." In the next verse "mi-besari" (A. V. "from my flesh") is rightly understood as "away from [outside] my family," the thought being that even if the members of his family ("flesh"; designated also as "skin") prove derelict to their duty, he has seen one, and not a stranger, that will assume the obligation.

The Jewish Messianic doctrine of salvation does not center in personal immortality, nor in the theologized application of the solidarity of the clan. The Jewish savior was not a go'el in the sense that he took upon himself the blood-guiltiness of sin incurred by another. Moreover, the avenger requited murder by killing another and not himself: he did not die for others, but he caused death in behalf of others. The go'el never was the vicarious victim. It was he who demanded blood, but never gave his own as a ransom. In this theology of salvation "go'el" is mistaken for "kofer" (see Atonement). For the later development of the eschatological implications of salvation see Eschatology." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13051-salvation
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#94
Right, most of the time God uses a human preacher.

So, using the example of the Lakota person above that I talked about, can they be saved? Or, will they just have to go to hell because there were no missionaries in that area 1000 years ago?
Hebrews 11 and

Romans 2 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Let God Be the Judge
2 So do you think that you can judge those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself. 2 God judges all who do such things, and we know his judgment is right. 3 And since you do the same things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will punish you too. How could you think you would be able to escape his judgment? 4 God has been kind to you. He has been very patient, waiting for you to change. But you think nothing of his kindness. Maybe you don’t understand that God is kind to you so that you will decide to change your lives.

5 But you are so stubborn! You refuse to change. So you are making your own punishment greater and greater. You will be punished on the day when God will show his anger. On that day everyone will see how right God is to judge people. 6 He will reward or punish everyone for what they have done. 7 Some people live for God’s glory, for honor, and for life that cannot be destroyed. They live for those things by always continuing to do good. God will give eternal life to them. 8 But others are selfish and refuse to follow truth. They follow evil. God will show his anger and punish them. 9 He will give trouble and suffering to everyone who does evil—to the Jews first and also to those who are not Jews. 10 But he will give glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does good—to the Jews first and also to those who are not Jews. 11 God judges everyone the same. It doesn’t matter who they are.

12 People who have the law and those who have never heard of the law are all the same when they sin. People who don’t have the law and are sinners will be lost. And, in the same way, those who have the law and are sinners will be judged by the law. 13 Hearing the law does not make people right with God. They will be right before him only if they always do what the law says.

14 Those who are not Jews don’t have the law. But when they naturally do what the law commands without even knowing the law, then they are their own law. This is true even though they don’t have the written law. 15 They show that in their hearts they know what is right and wrong, the same as the law commands, and their consciences agree. Sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done wrong, and this makes them guilty. And sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done right, and this makes them not guilty.

16 All this will happen on the day when God will judge people’s secret thoughts through Jesus Christ. This is part of the Good News that I tell everyone.

The Jews and the Law
17 What about you? You say you are a Jew. You trust in the law and proudly claim to be close to God. 18 You know what God wants you to do. And you know what is important, because you have learned the law. 19 You think you are a guide for people who don’t know the right way, a light for those who are in the dark. 20 You think you can show foolish people what is right. And you think you are a teacher for those who are just beginning to learn. You have the law, and so you think you know everything and have all truth. 21 You teach others, so why don’t you teach yourself? You tell them not to steal, but you yourself steal. 22 You say they must not commit adultery, but you yourself are guilty of that sin. You hate idols, but you steal them from their temples. 23 You are so proud that you have God’s law, but you bring shame to God by breaking his law. 24 As the Scriptures say, “People in other nations insult God because of you.”

25 If you follow the law, then your circumcision has meaning. But if you break the law, then it is as if you were never circumcised. 26 Those who are not Jews are not circumcised. But if they do what the law says, it is as if they were circumcised. 27 You have the written law and circumcision, but you break the law. So those who are not circumcised in their bodies, but still obey the law, will show that you are guilty.

28 You are not a true Jew if you are only a Jew in your physical body. True circumcision is not only on the outside of the body. 29 A true Jew is one who is a Jew inside. True circumcision is done in the heart. It is done by the Spirit, not by the written law. And anyone who is circumcised in the heart by the Spirit gets praise from God, not from people.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#95
Romans 2:15 is the text that Invincible Ignorance is based on.

"
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Definition
Lack of knowledge, either of fact or law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time or talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable.

"
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34299


"Catechism of the Catholic Church (§1793), using an old Catholic term, defines as invincible ignorance: “If the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.”" https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2012/05/24/invincible-ignorance/

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/ignorance-invincible-and-vincible
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#96
Psalm 32:2 Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.


2 Samuel 19:19 And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart.

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,897
1,458
113
67
Brighton, MI
#97
Also, I remember reading a long time ago about a man who was raised a devout Hindu who sought God and received a vision or maybe it was a visit from Jesus.

So yes, it does happen, but as you said it's rare. It does seem to happen in those cultures that have already had some exposure to Jesus and Christianity.
There are also, Muslims who have come to Jesus by means of visions too.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,370
113
I agree that Protestants do look to the Bible for doctrinal foundation. But again, a strange thing happens when the subject of canonicity comes up.

About who produced the Bible, how about if we look at it this way.

Who produced The book of Romans? we could say it is a product of divine inspiration from the holy Spirit. Or we could say that Paul wrote it. How about if we say that it is a product of Paul writing under the inspiration of the holy Spirit. God wrote it, Paul is the human agent through whom God delivered it to the world.

And I think the Catholic Church would say something similar. That God inspired the Bible, various people were the human agents that wrote it down on paper or papyrus, and the church was the human agency through which God delivered it to the world.

This relates especially to canonicity. Who wrote the table of contents of the Bible that you use? Of course we can say that God wrote it, but who was the human agent or agents through whom it was delivered to you?
The book of roman is product of Holy Spirit use Paul as an agent.

Not product of Paul

Branch can not bear fruit of itself

Than who bear the fruit?

The credit goes to the vine