Whats the deal with Catholics?

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

Why did Mary have to be born without sin?

The Catholic Church claims in order for Jesus to be born without sin Mary had to also be without sin. Otherwise if she had sin in her she would have then passed on the sin to Jesus and then He would not be sinless.

Now the problem is in order for Mary to be without sin her Mother also had to be without sin and her grandmother had to also be without sin.

To get around this problem the Catholics then claimed God keep Mary free from sin while in the womb of a sinner.

Now bear with me. If God had the power to keep Mary without sin then God did have the power to keep Jesus free from sin while in the womb of Mary who was a sinner.

But, the Catholics teach its the Mother that passes on the sin to the baby. God says its the Father who passes on the sin to the baby, not the Mother.

Since the Holy Spirit was the Father and the Holy Spirit is sinless, Mary never had to be without sin in the first place.

Because the Catholics do Worship Mary they had to put Mary in the place of the Holy Spirit.

This is why today the Catholics demand only Mary had the power to keep Jesus free from sin.

Do you see DeaconMike why the Catholics demand Mary was without sin? Not because she needed to be but because Mary is a god the Catholics Worship.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

Dear Fran

Another reason why Protestants need to accept the language of objective guilt and innocence is that the Bible itself uses this kind of language. It often speaks of guilt and innocence in terms of objective properties, such as colors or cleanliness. Scripture speaks of our sins being “crimson like scarlet” (Isaiah 1:18

), and the Psalmist says “wash me with hyssop and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Psalm 51:7

). It is also the kind of righteousness Scripture has in mind when it talks about our sins making us “unclean” or “filthy” and our forgiveness making us “pure” and “clean” before God. In these passages, guilt and innocence are conceived of as objectively real properties that cling to us just like colors and cleanliness.
So there is no reason why Protestants need to object to the metaphysical understanding of righteousness that Catholics use. In fact, many Protestants are uncomfortable with using purely legal language for justification and state quite adamantly that justification is not just a legal fiction. That God actually “constitutes” us in righteousness. The only difference on this point is that they do not use the metaphysical understanding of righteousness in order to explain what constituting in righteousness means. But there is no reason why they cannot do so and, as we have seen, there are positive reasons why they should. Thus for example Protestant authors such as Norman Geisler, who are more familiar with the principles of ontology, are willing to talk about actual righteousness being given in justification. Geisler, for example, uses the helpful terminology of speaking of legal righteousness as “extrinsic” righteousness and actual righteousness as “intrinsic righteousness.”
Catholics, for their part, have no trouble saying that a person is legally righteous before God when they are justified. If God constitutes a person in righteousness
Furthermore, Catholics don’t need to have any problem with saying that our righteousness is brought about by a decree of God. The Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that when we are justified God declares us righteous and his declaration bring about what it says. He declares us righteous, and so our guilt is taken away and our righteousness is restored.
This is something for which there is good Biblical support for. God’s word is efficacious. It accomplishes what it says. In Genesis 1 God spoke and his word brought about the things that he spoke. He said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. He said, “Let the waters be divided from each other so that dry land may appear,” and they did. He said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures,” and they did. Furthermore, in Isaiah 55:11

, God said, “o shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (RSV).
God may sometimes choose to give graces which are incomplete, which do not of themselves bring about their target goal (see the essay, “Resisting and Cooperating With God”), but when God declares something to be so, it is so. God’s word is efficacious; it brings about what it says. So when God declares us righteous, we actually become righteous: we have our guilt taken away and our purity before God restored. This is true even if the righteousness that is being restored is the original righteousness which Adam lost for the whole human race.
Thus in Catholic theology the term “justification” is used to refer to the event by which we are given ontological or real righteousness. Coextensive with this, of course, is legal righteousness, for God will not treat anyone as unrighteous who is really righteous. Similarly, God will not treat as righteous anyone who is really unrighteous. As God declares in Scripture, ‘I will not justify the wicked” (Ex. 23:7

) — his holiness prevents it. Thus for God to make someone legally righteous, he also must make them actually righteous; he must constitute them in righteousness. And for God to make someone actually righteous, he must correspondingly make them legally righteous.
So a Catholic need have no problems with the forensic/declaratory aspects of justification. God does indeed declare us righteous, and that is nothing with which a Catholic needs to quarrel. A Catholic also does not need to quarrel about which kind of righteousness is the cause and which is the effect, whether God declares a person legally righteous and that, by the miraculous creative power of his word, makes the person actually righteous, or whether God makes the person actually righteous and therefore declares the person legally righteous. This is a matter of indifference in Catholic theology.
Furthermore, when Catholics talk about progressive justification/sanctification, they are again thinking of God making us ontologically righteous. This is almost totally missed by Protestants when they compare the Catholic view of progressive justification to the Protestant idea of sanctification, which is in turn part of the basis on which they say Catholics confuse justification with sanctification. No, Catholics don’t. They recognize that growth in personal holiness (behavioral righteousness) is a separate and subsequent event to initial justification. The confusion is on the part of the Protestant who thinks Catholics are talking about growth in behavioral righteousness when they talk about progressive justification/sanctification. They aren’t. They’re talking about growth in actual righteousness.
This is sometimes a difficult concept for Protestants to grasp since they have heard so many sermons about righteousness being an all or nothing thing that they have trouble understanding the concept of how righteousness can grow. This is one of the things that keeps them boxed into a two-fold understanding of righteousness. However, the problem is solved when one grasps the concept of actual righteousness, which is not a one-dimensional but a two-dimensional concept.
The first dimension of actual righteousness is its level of purity, which we might refer to as the quality of the righteousness. When one becomes a Christian and is justified, one receives totally pure actual righteousness. There is no admixture of sin or unrighteousness in the righteousness God gives one. Thus in this sense one is made just as righteous as Christ, because the level of purity in Christ’s righteousness and ours is the same.
However, from this point of initial justification one’s righteousness begins to grow during the course of the Christian life. This is the hard part for Protestants to understand since they will ask, “But if we are already made totally pure, how can our righteousness grow from there?” The answer is where the second dimension of actual righteousness comes in. Righteousness does not continue to grow in the first dimension; once total purity has been received, it is not possible for righteousness to grow in that dimension. One cannot go beyond total purity in the quality of righteousness, so righteousness grows in its second dimension — its quantity.
Even though when we first came to God we were made totally righteous in the sense that we became totally pure, we have not yet done any good works, for these are made possible only by God’s grace after justification. The righteousness God have given us may be totally perfect in quality but it is not yet totally perfect in quantity. We may be just as righteous as Christ in the sense that the righteousness God has given us is just as pure as Christ’s, but it is not as extensive as Christ’s because we have not done as many good works as Christ. The tiny little good works we do in our lives — works wrought only by the grace God himself gives us — in no way compare to the huge, overwhelming, infinite good works of Christ, such as his death on the cross. So while we may have just as much righteousness as Christ in terms of its quality (total purity, by God’s grace), we do not have just as much righteousness as Christ in terms of its quantity.
It is in terms of the quantity of righteousness that rewards are given in heaven, and thus because Christ has a greater quantity of righteousness than we do, he also has a correspondingly greater reward. As Paul says: “eing found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Philippians 2:8-10

). And as the book of Hebrews declares: “Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, . . . for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:2

). And so “in everything he [has] the supremacy” (Col. 1:18

).
This understanding of the three kinds of righteousness — legal, actual, and behavioral[4] — enables us to look back at the reasoning of the Protestant apologist we mentioned earlier and see where it goes wrong. One will recall that the apologist reasoned:
“Catholics believe we are made righteous when we are initially justified, but they do not believe we are made legally righteous, so they must mean that we are made behaviorally righteous at initial justification.”
Obviously this is false since the Catholic is not boxed into a two-fold view of righteousness. It is natural for the Protestant to think this, since his own thoughts on righteousness are normally limited to legal and behavioral, but in fact that Catholic believes that in justification we are given actual righteousness (and in conjunction with it, legal righteousness, for the two are co-extensive, as well as being given the first stirrings of behavioral righteousness through regeneration). The apologist then reasoned:
“They also believe that we grow in righteousness during progressive justification. This has to be growth in behavioral righteousness, because legal righteousness before God cannot grow; you are either legally righteous or you are not. Thus Catholics must mean by ‘progressive justification’ what I mean by ‘sanctification’–that is, growth in behavioral righteousness.”
This is also false because in progressive justification Catholics are again talking about actual righteousness, and actual righteousness does grow in quantity though not in quality.
“However, if it is possible to grow in behavioral righteousness after initial justification, that must mean the Catholic does not believe he was made completely righteous in initial justification.”
This is false because the Catholic does believe we are made completely righteous in terms of the quality of our righteousness (both actually and, consequently, legally) at justification. The growth that occurs later is a growth of quantity, not quality.
“Thus Catholics must believe they are made partially behaviorally righteous during initial justification and then they grow in righteousness during progressive justification, which I call sanctification. Thus they confuse justification and sanctification.”
If Catholics did believe initial justification is to be identified as the event where we are made partially behaviorally righteous, followed by later growth in behavioral righteousness, then they would indeed be confusing justification with the sanctification (as Protestants use the term “sanctification”), because this would merely make justification the first stage of behavioral sanctification. However, while there is a gift of partial behavioral righteousness at the time of justification (because of regeneration, which makes us spiritually alive and no longer dead in our sins, so that the power of sin is broken in our lives and we are no longer enslaved to it, though we do still have to battle it, cf. Romans 6), this gift of partial behavioral righteousness is not what justification consists in. In Catholic language, justification consists in God making us actually righteous (and 100% righteous in terms of quality), which is either brought about by God’s declaring us legally righteous or which brings about this legal declaration.
The confusion is thus not on the part of the Catholic. The Catholic is not confusing justification with sanctification — not confusing our initial reception by God and the growth in behavioral righteousness which follows — the confusion is on the part of the Protestant apologist who has not studied Catholic theology properly (and who probably has never read Catholic sources or has only scanned them looking for “ammo” to use against Catholics, rather than trying to enter into the Catholic thought-world and understand what Catholics really mean rather than what he has been told in sermons and lectures and radio program they mean), and who has thus confused his own understanding of sanctification with the Catholic understanding of both justification and sanctification.
Unfortunately, the misunderstanding the Protestant apologist has concerning these matters leads him into other confusions as well. For example, I have talked to, debated, and read numerous Protestant apologists who, because they are confused about the growth of righteousness, ask questions like, “If Catholics believe we are only made partially righteous in justification and you do good works after this to make this righteousness grow, how do you know when you have done enough good works to go to heaven? How many good works do you have to do?”
Protestants who say this at least have a leg up on those who think Catholics believe we must do good works in order to become justified — a position which was explicitly condemned at Trent, which taught “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (Decree on Justification 8).Catholic theology teaches we do not do good works in order to be justified, but that we are justified in order to do good works, as Paul says: “[W]e are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10

). Justification is the cause, not the consequence, of good works.
However, these Protestants are still confused about the fact that Catholics do not teach we are made only partially righteous in justification. The Church teaches that we are made totally righteous — we receive 100% pure righteousness — in justification. Thus Trent declares:
“n those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death . . . but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven” (Decree on Original Sin 5).
This one quote alone, even without the surrounding infrastructure of Catholic theology, from which the same thing could be deduced, shows how false, foolish, based on inadequate research, and motivated by a lack of comprehension of basic Catholic theological reasons is the whole, “How can you know when you have done enough?” line of argument. Nothing beyond one’s initial justification and regeneration is needed in order to go to heaven. In fact, this is one of the arguments in the Catholic case for infant baptism. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Since the earliest times, baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom” (CCC 1282).

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

So we cannot earn eternal life by doing good works, but we must do good works (perform acts of charity, keep His commandments, love our neighbor etc..) in order to become saved? That is an oxymoron. You are confusing DESCRIPTIVE passages of Scripture with PRESCRIPTIVE passages of Scripture. Dear God 4Me

No the difference is in how the term faith is used. As I said before. The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22

, 23

, James 2:19

), to assurance (Acts 17:31

), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3

, Titus 2:10

). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6

, which refers to “faith working by charity.” In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or “faith formed by charity.” The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or “faith unformed by charity.” This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19

, for example.
Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term “faith” is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19

,
However, if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.
A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word “formed” to clarify the nature of the faith in “sola fide” renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

FranC said:

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title “Apocrypha.”
Catholics refer to them as the “deuterocanonical” books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the “protocanonical” books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?
The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are “apocryphal.” During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don’t belong in Scripture.
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church — the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life — the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands — especially without warning them against them.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35

).

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books — Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation — and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45

); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that “The Jews don’t except these books.” In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

Dear Fran

Ok a lot here. But basically, the apostles and Jesus used bothe the Hebrew text ( which came to be the Masoretic text and the LXX..
St Paul quotes 80% of his biblical quotes from the LXX.

In addition, the "other" books not included in the Hebrew canon are cited as Scripture in the NT both be Jesus and St Paul
Here are some examples of text quoted from the LXX version.
Mat. 3:3. The Hebrew of Isa. 40:3 may be rendered, “The voice of one crying, In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord.” The crier himself is not necessarily in the wilderness: the path is to be prepared in the wilderness. Matthew follows the Septuagint in construing “in the wilderness” with “one crying,” and so renders “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord.” Here the cry comes from one who is himself in the wilderness, that is, from John the Baptist, who habitually preached in the wilderness of Judea.
Mat. 12:21. The Hebrew of Isa. 42:4 reads, “and the isles shall have hope in his law.” Matthew follows the Septuagint interpretation of this, “and the Gentiles shall have hope in his name.”
Mat. 13: 14-15. The Hebrew of Isa. 6:9-10 reads, “Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see...” Matthew follows the Septuagint in changing the first sentence from two commands to the people into a prophetic description of the people, “Ye shall surely hear, but shall not understand; ye shall surely see, but shall not perceive.” He also follows the Septuagint in changing the second sentence from two commands to the prophet into a description of the present condition of the people: “This people’s heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they see...”
Mat. 15:8-9. The Hebrew of Isa. 29:13 reads (somewhat obscurely), “their worship of me is but a commandment of men which hath been taught them.” The phrase, “but in vain do they worship me,” in which Matthew follows the Septuagint, was created by the translator of the Septuagint by separating “their worship of me” from the words that follow and supplying the thought “is in vain” to complete the sense, and then construing the rest of the sentence adverbially, “teaching the precepts and doctrines of men.” The sense of the passage is not materially changed in this.
Mat. 21:16. The Hebrew of Psa. 8:2 reads, “out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast established strength.” Matthew follows the Septuagint with “thou hast prepared praise.”
Mark 1:2. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above.
Mark 4:12. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 above. Mark departs from both the Hebrew and Septuagint with the interpretation, “and it should be forgiven them,” instead of “and I should heal them” (Septuagint) or “and be healed” (Hebrew).
Mark 7:6-7. See remarks on Mat. 15:8-9 above.
Luke 3:4. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above.
Luke 3:5-6. The Hebrew of Isa. 40:4-5 reads “every valley shall be exalted...all flesh shall see it [i.e., the glory of the Lord] together.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “every valley shall be filled...all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”
Luke 4:18. The Hebrew of Isa. 61:2 reads merely “the opening to them that are bound,” which may mean the opening of prisons. Luke follows the Septuagint interpretation, “the recovering of sight to the blind,” in which the “opening” is of blind eyes, but adds “to set at liberty the afflicted” as an alternative interpretation of the Hebrew. The phrase “to bind up the broken-hearted” (Septuagint “to heal the broken-hearted”) has been left out of the quotation.
Luke 8:10. The allusion to Isa. 6:9 conforms to the Septuagint. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 above.
John 1:23. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above. John’s quotation is somewhat looser.
John 12:34. There is a verbal correspondence here to the Septuagint of Psa. 89:36, “his [David’s] seed shall abide forever.”
John 12:38. “Lord” at the beginning of the quotation is not in the Hebrew, but in the Septuagint.
John 12:40. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 and Mark 4:12 above. John is quoting the Septuagint loosely, with reference to the Hebrew.
Acts 2:19-20. The Hebrew of Joel 2:30-31 has “pillars of smoke” and “terrible day.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “vapour of smoke” and “glorious day.”
Acts 2:26. The Hebrew of Psa. 16:9 has “my glory rejoiceth.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “my tongue rejoiced.”
Acts 2:28. The Hebrew of Psa. 16:11 has “in thy presence is fulness of joy; in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” Luke follows the Septuagint in paraphrasing the first clause “Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance,” and in dropping the last clause.
Acts 4:26. The Hebrew of Psa 2:2. reads, “the rulers take counsel together.” Luke follows the Septuagint, “the rulers were gathered together.”
Acts 7:14. The Hebrew of Gen. 46:27 and Exod. 1:5 has “seventy.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “seventy-five.”
Acts 7:43. The Hebrew of Amos 5:26 is difficult. It seems to say, “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun your images , the star of your god, which ye made.” Luke follows the Septuagint interpretation with “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which ye made.”
Acts 8:33. The Hebrew of Isa. 53:8 reads “he was taken away by distress and judgment.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “in his humiliation his judgment was taken away.”
Acts 13:34. The Hebrew of Isa. 55:3 has “the sure mercies of David.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “the holy and sure things of David.”
Acts 13:41. The Hebrew of Habakkuk 1:5 reads, “Behold, ye among the nations, and look, and wonder exceedingly.” The Septuagint has “Behold, ye despisers, and look, and wonder exceedingly, and perish,” which Luke largely follows.
Acts 15:17. The Hebrew of Amos 9:12 reads “that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations upon whom my name is called.” The Septuagint has “that the remnant of men and all the nations upon whom my name is called may seek after [me],” which Luke largely follows.

Is the Catholic Old Testament Accurate

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

You are confused DeaconMike. We receive Salvation by Grace from God.

Ephesians 2:8
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For by grace you have been saved through faith

We do not do "Good Works" for our Salvation because Salvation is received by Grace from God. We also do not receive Salvation by our Faith. Its Faith from God, not our Faith.

Faith comes later, after we receive Salvation.

But then how came we expect you to understand this when you do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Without the Holy Spirit you will never understand God and His Scriptures.

Justification by Works is a false Doctrine. We cannot do works,charity, to earn our Justification. Its by Faith we are Justified.

Romans 4:1-5
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? [SUP]2 [/SUP]For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [SUP]3 [/SUP]For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” [SUP]4 [/SUP]Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. [SUP]5 [/SUP]But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Its by Faith.

I do understand why Catholics like you have a hard time understanding the Scriptures. Not everyone who says they are a Christian have received Salvation. With salvation come the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit who teaches us all the Truths from Him. This is why you are having a hard time seeing the Truth in the Scriptures. You are trying too hard to understand the Truth by your own efforts. Until you receive Salvation you will always be blinded to the Truth from God.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

Dear Mike Henderson
Please refer to my posts for my rebuttal on Mary, blessings to you

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

MikeHenderson said:

Dear Mike Henderson
Lets look at your example of Abraham. One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6

. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul’s discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5

, cf. Rom. 4:18-22

) Abraham “believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3

). This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.
Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6

. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.
First, the book of Hebrews tells us that

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going.” (Hebrews 11:8

)

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith
But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it “when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive.” The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4

three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6

.
But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.
But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6

, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us,

“Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called the friend of God.” (James 2:21-23

)

James thus tells us “[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified . . . when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19

), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6

that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Abraham therefore received justification The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18

seven chapters after Gen. 15:6

. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.
As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer’s life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer’s life. This is shown by passages in Scripture where Paul indicates that there is a sense in which our justification is still future:

” . . . for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;” (Romans 2:13

)

“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20

)

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

What you do not understand DeaconMike is you have been deceived.

Did you know there is no proof or evidence for Purgatory? Did you know even Catholic theologians admit there is no evidence for Purgatory?

But yet the Catholics reach Purgatory as an absolute Truth. Like i said, you have been deceived.

Also the Books removed from the Bible were books never used by the Jewish people. Even they rejected these books as being false. Read these books and you will see why they were rejected.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

Justification by Works is a false Doctrine. We cannot do works,charity, to earn our Justification. Its by Faith we are Justified.
Dear Mike Henderson,
The Catholic Church does not teach justification by works. The Church is very clear we cannot earn our salvation. I suggest you go back to some previous posts as I have addressed this several times. God' blessings

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

What you still do not understand DeaconMike is BECAUSE we have Faith that we do 'Good Works'.

We DO NOT do Works for Faith. We do not receive Faith by doing works.

This is what you do not understand.

Abraham already had Faith and because he had Faith he did the works God wanted.

You keep on putting the cart before the horse.

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

Actually the Catholic Church teaches we receive Salvation by our good works. That no one can know if they have done enough good works to receive Salvation until after they die.

What Hope then is their in anyone receive Salvation?

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

MikeHenderson said:

Dear Mike 'I just posted a huge post of the LXX and the Deuterocanonical. for Fran. Please read to answer your questions.

Are you aware St Paul quotes 80% of his OT quotes from the LXX. In addition there is a huge list of citations both Jesus and the apostles use citing those boks you don't like here a few examples sir.

The following (huge) list is taken from pp. 800-804 of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition (Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine, published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 4:4

[/TD]
[TD]Wisdom 16:26

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 4:15

[/TD]
[TD]1 Maccabees 5:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 5:18

[/TD]
[TD]Baruch 4:1

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 5:28

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 9:8

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 5:2

ss[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 25:7-12

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 5:4

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 48:24

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:7

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 7:14

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:9

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 23:1

, 4

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:10

[/TD]
[TD]1 Maccabees 3:60

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:12

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 28:2

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:13

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 33:1

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:20

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 29:10s

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:23

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 14:10

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 6:33

[/TD]
[TD]Wisdom 7:11

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 7:12

[/TD]
[TD]Tobit 4:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 7:12

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 31:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 7:16

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 27:6

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 8:11

[/TD]
[TD]Baruch 4:37

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 8:21

[/TD]
[TD]Tobit 4:3

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew 9:36

[/TD]
[TD]Judith 11:19

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 1:15

[/TD]
[TD]Tobit 14:5

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 4:5

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 40:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 4:11

[/TD]
[TD]Wisdom 2:22

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 5:34

[/TD]
[TD]Judith 8:35

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 6:49

[/TD]
[TD]Wisdom 17:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 8:37

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 26:14

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 9:31

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 2:18

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 9:48

[/TD]
[TD]Judith 16:17

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 10:18

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 4:1

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 14:34

[/TD]
[TD]Sirach 37:2

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mark 15:29

[/TD]
[TD]Wisdom 2:17s

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3][/h]

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

Salvation, in Roman Catholicism, is a process with many steps: Actual Grace, Faith, Good Works, Baptism, Participation in the Sacraments, Penance, Indulgences, and Keeping the Commandments. Basically, salvation is attained through baptism and good works. It is maintained by good works and participation in the sacraments. If lost, it is regained through the sacrament of Penance which only a Roman Catholic priest can administer. Add to this purgatorial cleansing after a person dies, and you can see that salvation is an arduous process.

In Catholicism, a person can gain salvation and lose it many times depending on the number of sins committed, their severity, and how much of the sacraments they participate in--in order to regain grace which enables them to do good works by which they are justified. Furthermore, justifying grace is infused into the Catholic upon baptism and via the sacraments. This grace can be gradually lost through venial sins or forfeited all together with mortal sins.

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

Face the facts DeacomMike, you are on the outside looking in.

May God have Mercy on you.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

MikeHenderson said:

I take that to mean your out of answers. Study harder my friend

FlSnookman7 · Jul 14, 2016

Well DeaconMike, I for one have found your posts to be a great read. Most here and in general do not agree with my views on grace and sinlessness but I believe it is the gospel Jesus gave paul. I find it interesting that many here attack me by using the same things they accuse you of believing. I am too tired and not eloquent enough to reply in full as you have. I will say I know who I am in Christ and I believe this is key to obeying the commands Jesus left us.
Perhaps this weekend I can find time to more fully explain what I believe and how it goes against catholic teaching. I am usually said to be a hyper gracer lol though I don't know if that is even a real term. I am concerned that many here when they find they can't properly refute what you say with scripture will run to the mods and try to have you banned. Sadly that is their M.O. I have faith I can back everything I say with scripture and look forward to debating you in a civil manner. Until then, shalom.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

MikeHenderson said:

Dear Mike
I have addressed each of those objection quite thoroughly in these posts. If your really serious go back and look at the answers to them. Don't buy into anti Catholic junk. If you really are interested in knowing truth then study both sides of the arguments from both points of reference. You don't learn how to play golf at a swim shop. Learn the other sides answers before forming opinions. You will go much farther. Gods blessings to you.

jaybird88 · Jul 14, 2016

DeaconMike said:

does this passage deal with purgatory?

Matthew 5:25 - 26

[SUP]25 [/SUP]Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

FlSnookman7 said:

Dear FISnookman7 keep in mind St Paul didn't invent Christianity. Always start with the Gospels first when interpreting St Paul or any other Sacred Book. All the books are inspired ( all 72 them!) but we encounter Christ first and formost in the Gospels. Its where we meet Jesus.

Whats the deal with Catholics?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

jaybird88

Guest

Banned