catholics hate this
CB
Ephesians 3:2 if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that
grace of God which was given me to you-ward;
3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote
before in few words,
4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the
mystery of Christ;
--
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them
that take refuge in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar.
Christopher Beattie
<6D7162A77B1FF971.E6C2479B...@lp.airnews.net>,
CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ephesians 3:
> 2 if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that
> grace of God which was given me to you-ward;
> 3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I
> wrote before in few words,
> 4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the
> mystery of Christ;
Ok, I'll bite. Why do Catholics hate this? I've been a Catholic all
my life and never even knew I hated it. I still don't, and I don't
think other Catholics do. Why do you think we hate it?
Of course putting a little context into the text is something I think
every lover of scipture would appreciate. So here are the verses
before and after the passage cited.
1 Because of this, I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ (Jesus) for you
Gentiles--
2 if, as I suppose, you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace
that was given to me for your benefit,
3 (namely, that) the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I
have written briefly earlier.
4 When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of
Christ,
5 which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it
has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,
6 that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and
copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
What does that mean to you CB? The meaning is somewhat clear to me.
It says, (no more and no less) that this letter should give the reader
some insight into the revelation given to the Apostles which makes
salvation apply universally to Gentiles and Jews alike! The Church is
both the Church of Gentiles and Jews, it is universal, and we all know
what the word universal is in Latin, Catholic!
As a Catholic I *LOVE* this! It's Great News, even though I do happen
to have some Jewish blood in me, (although it's from my Mother's
Mother's Father's side, so it doesn't qualify me, since it is not
completely maternal) but basically I come from Gentile stock.
This verse was a radical to its day as E=MC2 was to the 20th century!
--
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
semper...@my-deja.com
<6D7162A77B1FF971.E6C2479B...@lp.airnews.net>,
CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ephesians 3:2 if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that
> grace of God which was given me to you-ward;
> 3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I
wrote
> before in few words,
> 4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the
> mystery of Christ;
>
> Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them
> that take refuge in him.
> 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee,
> and thou be found a liar.
>
So let's see...There were no bibles around for the general public
(including the contemporaries of Paul) to read and interpret for
themselves. The Gentiles (for whom Paul was primarily concerned with)
had nothing at all to reference on their own, and the Jews only had what
we would call "Old Testiment" scriptures. So here Paul is interpreting
what God has revealled to him (Paul) alone for them (The Ephesians) in
letters (Encyclicals). Notice that he is not telling them that each
reader is to form their own meaning of what he writes. No on the
contrary, he is writing to the Ephesians with authority. Much like the
Pope of Catholicism. I find nothing in this posting to hate or that is
blatantly contradictory to the Catholic tradition.
>
To quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"...Next, this power and goodness of God was evidenced in the
readers, whom it rescued from their sins and raised and exalted with
Christ. But it shone forth,
above all, in the establishment of a community of salvation welcoming
within its fold both Jews and
Gentiles without distinction, the Death of Christ having broken down the
middle wall of partition, i.e.
the Law, and both sections of the human race having thus been reconciled
to God so as thenceforth
to form but one body, one house, one temple, of which the apostles and
Christian prophets are the foundation and Christ Himself is the chief
cornerstone. (Eph., 1, 16-ii, 20.) Paul, as his readers must have heard,
was the minister chosen to preach to the Gentiles of this sublime
mystery of God, hidden from all eternity and not revealed even to the
angels, according to which the Gentiles are made
coheirs with the Jews, constitute a part of the same body, and are
joint partakers in the same promises (Eph., iii, 1-13). Deeply imbued
with this mystery, the Apostle implores the Father to lead
his readers to the perfection of the Christian state and the complete
knowledge of Divine charity
(Eph., iii, 14-19), continuing the same prayer with which he had begun
(Eph., 1, 16 sq.). ..."
The trouble with Protestant heritics is that in their arrogance each
thinks himself more worthy than those whom Christ has set over us in the
church He established on earth.
Semperfinite
John T. Stevenson
>The trouble with Protestant heritics is that in their arrogance each
>thinks himself more worthy than those whom Christ has set over us in the
>church He established on earth.
I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has long
since departed from the teachings of the Scriptures, there would be no
Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which to
protest.
The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The authority
of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
John
Fringe4
> of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
>
> John
The issue for Protestants is that they want to rebel and do their own thing
versus what God has set for them.
The Pope is not above the scripture. He interprets the scripture according
to Gods will. But the Protestants don't want to hear that. Because the Pope
tells them things they don't want to hear, they rebel. Thats the basis of
the Protestant Reformation.
Yours, Fringe4
Joseph Meehan
The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The
authority of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope.
In some cases it was their interpretation vs. the interpretation of
the Church, however it was often more a matter of civil authority vs.
the authority of the Church. This is most sad. Look at the example of
the Church of England. The pride and civil power hunger of both the
civil leaders and sad to say, those of Church leaders has lead to many
separations.
--
Dia's Muire duit
Joe M
OCM87
>versus what God has set for them.
>
>The Pope is not above the scripture. He interprets the scripture according
>to Gods will. But the Protestants don't want to hear that. Because the Pope
>tells them things they don't want to hear, they rebel. Thats the basis of
>the Protestant Reformation.
>
>Yours, Fringe4
Well, I have a serious problem with your theory. First of all, the pope has
always thought himself to be above the scriptures. When the catholic church
wanted something, it manipulated the scriptures to get it. It made decrees to
start the act of sprinkling, baptism of babies, confessionals, orders for
executions of men who translated the Bible into their own languages, created
canons to give a lawful look to their blasphemous desires and so forth.
You cannot find a good chunk of what catholicism teaches in the New Testament.
Why? Because someone in the catholic church thought, and still thinks, that
they know more about salvation than God.
The catholic church keeps griping about how the Church of Christ believes in
'sola scriptura'. Well, I personally had never heard of that phrase until I
saw it in this newsgroup but if the catholic church means what I think they
mean by that, then, yep, we do. Why? Because the New Testament clearly
commands that adding to or taking away from the scriptures in wrong........thus
the use of man-breathed books for guidance over the Bible is
unscriptural.......period.
Does that sound like an authority problem. No. It sounds like a doctrine
problem and it is. We refuse to follow a man made religion.......and
catholicism is clearly a man made doctrine.
In order for catholics to start having any legitimate arguments at all to their
claims, they are going to have to start quoting a little more scripture and a
heck of a lot less from their canons and creeds.
Fringe4
it when people approach things from a intellectual POV instead of an
emotional one.
> Well, I have a serious problem with your theory. First of all, the pope
has
> always thought himself to be above the scriptures. When the catholic
church
> wanted something, it manipulated the scriptures to get it. It made
decrees to
> start the act of sprinkling, baptism of babies, confessionals, orders for
> executions of men who translated the Bible into their own languages,
created
> canons to give a lawful look to their blasphemous desires and so forth.
These decrees, in theory, came from interpretation of the scripture. It is
not just because the Pope said "Hey, this is a good ideal." They came about
because people who were highly trained in religious fields, and who (at the
time) knew enough to translate other languages (such as what the bible came
from) to interpret what the scripture means.
> You cannot find a good chunk of what catholicism teaches in the New
Testament.
> Why? Because someone in the catholic church thought, and still thinks,
that
> they know more about salvation than God.
Tell me some of what you think is in the NT that Catholics should be
practicing.
> The catholic church keeps griping about how the Church of Christ believes
in
> 'sola scriptura'. Well, I personally had never heard of that phrase until
I
> saw it in this newsgroup but if the catholic church means what I think
they
> mean by that, then, yep, we do. Why? Because the New Testament clearly
> commands that adding to or taking away from the scriptures in
wrong........thus
> the use of man-breathed books for guidance over the Bible is
> unscriptural.......period.
"Sola Scriptura" I have never heard of either. Yes, I have heard the NT
command that. So, let me ask you. Do you use every book ever made for the
Bible; including the full Apocrypha? Or do you use just what is on the
shelf, and base your readings on only what has been left in the Bible?
> Does that sound like an authority problem. No. It sounds like a doctrine
> problem and it is. We refuse to follow a man made religion.......and
> catholicism is clearly a man made doctrine.
And Protestantism is also. It was made by people who said they didn't agree
with what was interpreted by Catholic scholars. They wanted to do their own
thing and so they rebelled. Need I comment that rebellion comes from Satan
himself?
> In order for catholics to start having any legitimate arguments at all to
their
> claims, they are going to have to start quoting a little more scripture
and a
> heck of a lot less from their canons and creeds.
Scripture is canonical, and the creeds have evolved from the scripture.
Yours, Fringe4
PS - No, I'm not even a Catholic and I know these things. And, I'm not
saying your too dumb to know these things, just saying that I have studied
where they get stuff from.
Fringe4
of the Pope. Take for instance the Russian Orthidox and the Greek Orthidox
Catholics. Neither one of them recognize the RC Pope as an authority. I'm
not even sure if the Irish Catholics do.
Yours, Fringe4
Theodore M. Seeber
> semper...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8m4r3r$hk1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >The trouble with Protestant heritics is that in their arrogance each
> >thinks himself more worthy than those whom Christ has set over us in the
> >church He established on earth.
>
> I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has long
> since departed from the teachings of the Scriptures, there would be no
> Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which to
> protest.
OTOH, if the Protestant Churches had not departed from the teachings of
the Apostles, there would be no misreading of Scripture to make the Roman
Church appear to not follow scripture.
> The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The authority
> of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
A dead book has no authority. We need the Holy Spirit to interpret
Scripture. I propose to you that it is demonstrateable that the
Protestants do not have the Holy Spirit because they interpret Scripture
in so many non-standard ways that the Pope appears to not be submissive to
Scripture (in reality, of course, as opposed to Protestant nuttiness and
reinterpretation of scripture to fit invented theology from the last 500
years, the Pope is submissive to Scripture because Scripture is a part of
Apostolic Tradition, and the Pope cannot make a valid pronouncement that
is in conflict with Apostolic Tradition. The Pope existed before the
Bible, and thus, Apostolic Tradition has greater authority than
Scripture).
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop and Doctor)
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
Theodore M. Seeber
mailto:see...@aracnet.com
Emergency Address (100 bytes or less) mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
Tired of Dubba Bush and Gore, and you still have several months of
campaigning to get through? Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
-Unofficial UN motto.
semper...@my-deja.com
oc...@aol.com (OCM87) wrote:
SNIP Fring4 (Sorry)
The problem witht he argument which follows this rebuttal is that it is
absurd, for the simple reason that taken to it's logical conclusion it
would invalidate the very writings used by the Protestants as proof of
their argument. Consider the protestant arguement of scriptural
authority prior to 200 A.D. when most of the new testement source
documents were written. If one were to say to Paul or Peter or James
etc. that their authoritative epistles had no scriptural basis. You
would be right, did that make them unchristian?
Look at what they wrote and how it departed strikingly with the old
testement, does this mean it must not be from God. I think not!
If it were so there would be no christianity, we
would all still be Jews or non-Christian gentiles. No I'm afraid one
has to realize the fact that there was no KJV prior to 1400 A.D.(?), and
while the Vulgate version of St. Jerome had existed since around 400
A.D. no one except clergy had access to it. Therefore, any argument
that says Christian faith has no authority unless it is founded soley
and entirely on the Bible is just nonsense.
I think part of the problem with protestants is that they view
Christianity as a dead religion where nothing new can happen since 30
A.D., where Christians are not Saints and what they write and think is
not inspired from God. I belong to a living faith whose members are as
intimate with the God of all creation now as they were 2000 years ago.
Semperfinite
>Well, I have a serious problem with your theory. First of all, the
pope has
> always thought himself to be above the scriptures. When the catholic
church
> wanted something, it manipulated the scriptures to get it. It made
decrees to
> start the act of sprinkling, baptism of babies, confessionals, orders
for
> executions of men who translated the Bible into their own languages,
created
> canons to give a lawful look to their blasphemous desires and so
forth.
>
> You cannot find a good chunk of what catholicism teaches in the New
Testament.
> Why? Because someone in the catholic church thought, and still
thinks, that
> they know more about salvation than God.
>
> The catholic church keeps griping about how the Church of Christ
believes in
> 'sola scriptura'. Well, I personally had never heard of that phrase
until I
> saw it in this newsgroup but if the catholic church means what I think
they
> mean by that, then, yep, we do. Why? Because the New Testament
clearly
> commands that adding to or taking away from the scriptures in
wrong........thus
> the use of man-breathed books for guidance over the Bible is
> unscriptural.......period.
>
> Does that sound like an authority problem. No. It sounds like a
doctrine
> problem and it is. We refuse to follow a man made religion.......and
> catholicism is clearly a man made doctrine.
>
> In order for catholics to start having any legitimate arguments at all
to their
> claims, they are going to have to start quoting a little more
scripture and a
> heck of a lot less from their canons and creeds.
>
timo...@yahoo.com
"John T. Stevenson" <jste...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7xqh5.2181
>
> I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has long
> since departed from the teachings of the Scriptures, there would be no
> Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which to
> protest.
> The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The authority
> of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
The Bible teaches that the Church is the final authority.
Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven.”
Matt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a
tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has
sent me, even so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on
them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins
of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained."
Eph 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be
made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11 This
was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus
our Lord
1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the
household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and
bulwark of the truth.
The simple fact is that protestatnism, by it's own making, not only
contradicts what the Bible teaches, but it proves itself to be false.
1. Protestants assert "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired
Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are
meant by the "inspired Scriptures" since many different sects and religions
have many different books which they call "inspired Scriptures."
2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures,"
means in fact those 66 books which are bound and published in Protestant
Bibles. (henceforth referred to as "the 66 books")
3. The statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B:
"All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books."
4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any
statements telling us which books make up the entire body of inspired
Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their
own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses
together. This would be the case:
(a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel
is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture,"
etc., for all of the 66 books; and
(b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other
than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even
pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the
Bible itself.
5. It follows that Proposition B - the very foundation of all Protestant
Christianity - is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from
Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in
Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all
revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, it must be
now affirmed in Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66
books. "
6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition
B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a
self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66
books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there."
7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed
truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be
deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone
can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is
ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from
Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra- Scriptural premise
from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second
possibility involves no self- contradiction, but it is factually
preposterous, and is doubtful whether any Protestant has seriously tried to
defend it - least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly
emphasize the corruption of man's natural intellectual powers as a result of
the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and
responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality
of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that
this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence.
(Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an
authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded
certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what
is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those
who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely
Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own
fallibility - whether individually or collectively - in matters of religious
doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as
they deny the Pope's.)
8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be
deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at
all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought, and which
Protestants accept, is simply false.
--
http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/
SumBuny4Me
> I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has long
> since departed from the teachings of the Scriptures, there would be no
> Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which to
> protest.
>
> The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The authority
> of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
The only confusion I have about these statements is the profusion of
different protestant denominations. As a Catholic( who has fundamentalists
in her family tree), this profusion of protest over the centuries makes it
appear that if one disagrees with one(or more) points, then all one has to
do to achieve salvation is to splinter off, create a new church, and
denigrate all the others....
It is also confusing to hear a relative who says, "All Catholics are evil, I
hate them all.." in one breath, and say, "I love you, my neice/great
grandchild/cousin(whatever)" in the next. That is why I canNOT say, "I hate
all who are not Catholic", because: 1) It is not what Christ taught(love you
enemies),and 2) I cannot hate family, and 3) Not all of my friends are from
the same faith.
just my $0.02
Buny
Theodore M. Seeber
> The only confusion I have about these statements is the profusion of
> different protestant denominations. As a Catholic( who has fundamentalists
> in her family tree), this profusion of protest over the centuries makes it
> appear that if one disagrees with one(or more) points, then all one has to
> do to achieve salvation is to splinter off, create a new church, and
> denigrate all the others....
>
> It is also confusing to hear a relative who says, "All Catholics are evil, I
> hate them all.." in one breath, and say, "I love you, my neice/great
> grandchild/cousin(whatever)" in the next. That is why I canNOT say, "I hate
> all who are not Catholic", because: 1) It is not what Christ taught(love you
> enemies),and 2) I cannot hate family, and 3) Not all of my friends are from
> the same faith.
>
> just my $0.02
I agree.
It's also important to point out that the Catholic Church has much more in
common with first- and second- wave Reformation Churches (what others call
"Mainline" Protestant or "Sacramental" Protestant Churches, that is, those
that have more than one sacrament, using a Catholic understanding of the
word), than any of us do with the third- fourth- or fifth- wave Protestant
Churches (the third wave was Zwingli's Congreationalists and all the
tent-revaival snake-oil salesmen that came from then, the fourth wave was
the Televangelists, which really started with Darby's dispensationalism
but continued on into Health&Wealth gospel preachers, and the fifth wave
started with the Mormons, but includes Jehovah's Witnesses and a whole
slew of Seventh Day Adventist inspired cults that sometimes make the news,
at least when they commit suicide, or entice the federal government to
kill them).
I think the real problem was Zwingli's rejection of the sacraments that
makes me say: These people are rejecting Christ. They're no better than
atheists.
9 Volts
<slig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Begin Quote
> The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The
>authority of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope.
>End Quote
>
> In some cases it was their interpretation vs. the interpretation of
>the Church, however it was often more a matter of civil authority vs.
>the authority of the Church. This is most sad. Look at the example of
>the Church of England. The pride and civil power hunger of both the
>civil leaders and sad to say, those of Church leaders has lead to many
>separations.
b/c henry VIII wanted ANOTHER divorce and the church said no?
NetZero
beliefs.
Pax
"ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8m7l2p$htn$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> I completely agree. I am not a catholic, some things in the roman
catholic
> religion are just plain wrong. But I definitely don't hate the people,
any
> of them.
>
> The bible clearly states that there is unity in the body of Christ.
>
> How can any one, who says they hate all catholics remove themselves from
> other prejudices?
>
> Hence, I suggest we discuss our differences with love and friendship, not
> with hatred.
>
> Love and blessings
>
> Stephen
>
> "SumBuny4Me" <Rous...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
> news:QVHh5.87099$Yr4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > "John T. Stevenson" <jste...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:7xqh5.2181$GL3.2...@news2.mia...
> >
> > > I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has
long
> > > since departed from the teachings of the Scriptures, there would be no
> > > Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which
to
> > > protest.
> > >
> > > The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The
> authority
> > > of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> > > submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > The only confusion I have about these statements is the profusion of
> > different protestant denominations. As a Catholic( who has
> fundamentalists
> > in her family tree), this profusion of protest over the centuries makes
it
> > appear that if one disagrees with one(or more) points, then all one has
to
> > do to achieve salvation is to splinter off, create a new church, and
> > denigrate all the others....
> >
> > It is also confusing to hear a relative who says, "All Catholics are
evil,
> I
> > hate them all.." in one breath, and say, "I love you, my neice/great
> > grandchild/cousin(whatever)" in the next. That is why I canNOT say, "I
> hate
> > all who are not Catholic", because: 1) It is not what Christ taught(love
> you
> > enemies),and 2) I cannot hate family, and 3) Not all of my friends are
> from
> > the same faith.
> >
> > just my $0.02
> >
> > Buny
> >
> >
>
>
CB
Fringe4 wrote:
>
> The Pope is not above the scripture.
You finally got something right.
> He interprets the scripture according
> to Gods will.
Wrong.
He misinterprets it prove the false doctrine of catholicism.
> But the Protestants don't want to hear that. Because the Pope
> tells them things they don't want to hear, they rebel. Thats the basis of
> the Protestant Reformation.
Wrong again.
The basis of the reformation is a "return to Truth".
And we all know how much the rcc hates truth.
>
>
> Yours, Fringe4
CB
timo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Interesting how you don't have one Scripture with the word "authority" in it.
You had to go to "traditions of men" for that.
You are again proven a liar.
NetZero
your man made theology of Sola Scriptura.
Our Lord's Church
By Rev. Francis Peffley
1. The Church began on Pentecost, as is shown in Matt. 28:18-20. This was
about 10 years before the first book of the New Testament was written.
2. The Church was not then, nor is it now, the chaotic 25,000 or more
groups shown below; rather it is one Faith (Rom. 12:5, and Eph. 4:3-5), one
Fold and one Shepherd (John 10:17-21).
3. The New Testament, when completed (100 A.D.) and available in print
(1440 A.D.), did not supplant Christ's One teaching Church.
Our Lord's System
The Apostles were commanded to teach (Matt. 28:19). They did preach
everywhere (Mark 16:15, 20) as St. Paul said: 'faith cometh by hearing"
(Rom 10:17).
Our Lord's Guarantee
"Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world" (Matt.28:20).
"The Holy Spirit shall abide with you forever" (John 14:16). "He shall
teach you all things" (John 14:26).
Consequences
St. Paul calls the Church "the Pillar and Ground of the Truth" (1 Tim.
3:15). Christ promised that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against
His Church" (Matt.16:18).
Conclusion
Hence (if Christ kept His promise, as He necessarily did) the Church which
began on Pentecost still exists as:
Christ's One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic Church.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New Testament History
43 A.D. First book of the New Testament was written.
100 A.D. Last book of New Testament was written. St. John maintained (Jn
20:25) that Jesus did and taught many other things not recorded in the
Bible. St. Paul urged Christians to follow these unwritten teachings (2
Thes. 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2), which were passed on by word of mouth.
397 A.D. Because of bitter persecutions, etc. the New Testament was not
placed under one cover until 397 A.D. by the Catholic Council of Hippo. If
the Church was infallible then, why is it not also infallible now?
1440 A.D. Between 397 and 1440 (when printing was invented) individual
Bibles written by hand were extremely scarce and costly. How then would an
unwritten and unavailable New Testament fit into today's "Bible-only"
theory?
1940 A.D. The Bible remains one precious source of religious truth, which,
however, requires an authorized interpreter, as today's 25,000 sects
conclusively prove.
1955 A.D. If all or most non-Catholics everywhere gave the same
interpretation of the Bible, their system might deserve consideration. But,
as we know, the interpretations "are tossed about by every wind of
doctrine."
Effects of Bible-only Theory
890 Easter Orthodox (11 groups) seceded from the Catholic Church
(890-1054).
1517 Lutherans (20 groups) founded by Martin Luther.
1523 Mennonites (17 groups) founded by several "reformers."
1534 Protestant Episcopal, equivalent of Anglicans.
1560 Presbyterians (10 groups) founded by John Knox.
1600 Baptists (23 branches) founded by John Smith.
1739 Methodists (19 groups) founded by John and Charles Wesley.
1827 Disciples of Christ founded by Thomas and Alexander Campbell.
1829 Brethren, Plymouth (8 groups) founded by J. Nelson Darby.
1830 Latter-day Saints (7 branches) founded by Joseph Smith.
1831 Adventists (5 branches) founded by William Miller.
1865 Salvation Army founded by William Booth
1879 Church of Christ, Scientist founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
1896 Volunteers of America founded by Ballington Booth.
1901 Pentecostal Assemblies (9 groups) founded by revivalists.
1927 Four-Square Gospel founded by Aimee Semple McPherson
And a lengthy list of others too numerous to mention.
God wills that all "Come to the knowledge of the Truth" (1 Tim 2:4).
Pax
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2295FFEAFE9941D4.0C0B1863...@lp.airnews.net...
NetZero
Pax
Our Lord's System
Our Lord's Guarantee
Consequences
Conclusion
Christ's One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic Church.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New Testament History
Effects of Bible-only Theory
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:523B7E5A2F443D2F.8B484B7C...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> Fringe4 wrote:
>
> >
> > The Pope is not above the scripture.
>
> You finally got something right.
>
> > He interprets the scripture according
> > to Gods will.
>
> Wrong.
> He misinterprets it prove the false doctrine of catholicism.
>
> > But the Protestants don't want to hear that. Because the Pope
> > tells them things they don't want to hear, they rebel. Thats the basis
of
> > the Protestant Reformation.
>
> Wrong again.
> The basis of the reformation is a "return to Truth".
> And we all know how much the rcc hates truth.
>
> >
> >
> > Yours, Fringe4
>
CB
ihug wrote:
> I agree. But (and I'm not saying you are) many seem to judge catholics as
> if it is there fault.
>
> Catholics are in the unfortunate position of having been taught these
> things, to a large extent, many of them are not even aware that these things
> are going on.
>
> Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic church
> tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with the bible.
> The church hopes you will not read your bible.
I mostly agree.
However, it is up to individual catholics to "seek the Truth" instead of
listening to "traditions of men".
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and
they are they which testify of me.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they
received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.
CB
OCM87 wrote:
> >> The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The authority
> >> of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> >> submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
> >
> >A dead book has no authority.
>
> Oh "good night Irene"!! The scriptures are dead to you? How can anyone in
> this group take anything you say with a straight face?
>
> Hey CB! Did you know that the scriptures are "dead"? Yep, it's news to me
> too.
Oh, that's what Teddy says.
No one listens to him :)
Fringe4
news:8m7en7$fl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000801085949...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> oc...@aol.com (OCM87) wrote:
> SNIP Fring4 (Sorry)
>
> The problem witht he argument which follows this rebuttal is that it is
> absurd, for the simple reason that taken to it's logical conclusion it
> would invalidate the very writings used by the Protestants as proof of
> their argument. Consider the protestant arguement of scriptural
> authority prior to 200 A.D. when most of the new testement source
> documents were written. If one were to say to Paul or Peter or James
> etc. that their authoritative epistles had no scriptural basis. You
> would be right, did that make them unchristian?
I'm not sure where you got the part about most of the NT wrote in 200 AD,
but from what I have been able to tell, there is no extant version of the NT
that is dated before 471 AD
> Look at what they wrote and how it departed strikingly with the old
> testement, does this mean it must not be from God. I think not!
>
> If it were so there would be no christianity, we
> would all still be Jews or non-Christian gentiles. No I'm afraid one
> has to realize the fact that there was no KJV prior to 1400 A.D.(?), and
> while the Vulgate version of St. Jerome had existed since around 400
> A.D. no one except clergy had access to it. Therefore, any argument
> that says Christian faith has no authority unless it is founded soley
> and entirely on the Bible is just nonsense.
I agree. Do you know if I could find a copy of the St Jerome bible around?
> I think part of the problem with protestants is that they view
> Christianity as a dead religion where nothing new can happen since 30
> A.D., where Christians are not Saints and what they write and think is
> not inspired from God. I belong to a living faith whose members are as
> intimate with the God of all creation now as they were 2000 years ago.
>
> Semperfinite
Yeah, take their view on modern day prophets. They dub them pshycho, demonic
and cultish, even though the bible shows that God will send more prophets.
Yours, Fringe4
Fringe4
> However, it is up to individual catholics to "seek the Truth" instead of
> listening to "traditions of men".
Then, if you go to church, and listen to men interpret the bible, are you
doing wrong? These men (catholic scholars) are trained in religious history
and interpretation. What makes you think that you are more learned in the
ways of God than them?
Yours, Fringe4
Pied Piper
doctrines of men that place there authority on a book rather than Christ.
Catholic Bible Answers
Be ready always with an answer for the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15)
Church Unity
Did Christ found one Church? "There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism; one
God."(Eph.34:4-6, Jn.17:21).
Is it against Christ's will for there to be division in His Church? "Now I
beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all
say the same thing; and that there be no dissension among you, but that you
be perfectly united in one mind and in one judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10.)
How can we heal the division in Christ's Church? By emphasizing what we have
in common, learning why we have different beliefs, and by having love for
one another. "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you
have love for one another."(Jn. 13:35.)
Bible Only Theory
Why does the Catholic Church reject the Bible only theory? The word
"Catholic", meaning universal, was first written in 110 A.D. by a Bishop
named St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote, "where Christ is, there is the
Catholic Church". The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. It is the first
and oldest Christian church. All Protestant churches can trace their
origins to the 1500's when a Catholic monk named Martin Luther proposed the
Bible only theory. He was warned that it is a logical fallacy because the
Bible cannot interpret itself, (Acts8:27-31, 2Pt.1:20,21,3:16) it must have
an interpreter. The many divisions among Protestant churches bear witness
to that fact. The scripture itself does not say it is the sole source of
revelation. He was successful only because of the recent invention of the
printing press. Before then, it was a physical impossibility to put a Bible
in every hand. None of the apostles ever had a copy of the New Testament,
and its books were disputed for 400 years.
Tradition
Tradition is inescapable. Many Protestant churches claim to have no
tradition, but this is not so. Each church has a particular group of
interpretations of scripture, which form their tradition and is passed on.
An example is, "Accept Christ as your personal Lord and savior", which is
nowhere in Scripture. Scripture does not use this expression. It is part of
their tradition. (Note it is not against Catholic beliefs.) Also, most
accept the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, yet neither word is used
in scripture. It is part of a Tradition, which Catholics also believe in.
Protestants accept the New Testament, a group of books chosen by Catholic
Bishops at the Council of Carthage in 396. The Apostles did not decide what
books would be in the New Testament, but the Church Christ founded did.
Scripture teaches tradition is important (1 Cor.11:2, Gal. 1:8-9, 2
Thess.2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim.1:13, 2:2, 3:14)
The Pope
Revelation is made up of Sacred Scripture (written word of God) and Sacred
Tradition (spoken word of God). It needs a reliable and authoritative
interpreter, one free from error (infallible). The Pope is the infallible
interpreter of revelation. The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith
and morals when he clearly defines something as Chief shepherd of the
Catholic Church. He does not make new revelation, but clarifies the original
revelation of Christ and the Apostles. The Pope is not impeccable or
incapable of sinning. Belief in infallibility is inescapable, it is not an
option. We either believe the Pope, ourselves, or someone else to be the
infallible (reliable) guide to scripture. We must trust in someone's
interpretation of scripture. Catholics trust the Pope because he was
appointed by Christ. "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (Mt.16:17-19)
"I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail." (Lk. 22:31,32). Christ
named him Peter "Cephas", which in Hebrew means "foundation stone". The
Greek rendition does not convey its full Hebrew meaning. "I will give you
the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven." (Mt.16:19) The "keys" symbolize authority (Is.
22:15-25, Rv.1:18). Thus, the Pope has authority. Jesus says, "I am the good
shepherd" (Jn.10:14) and to Peter "Feed my sheep" (Jn.21:15-17) which means
"teach my Church." He appoints Peter as chief shepherd of His church.
Christ is the invisible head of the Church, the Pope is the visible head.
Christ appointed St. Peter to lead in His place, which is clear from
scripture. Through His mystical body, the Church, Christ continues to
appoint the leader of His Church, the successors of St. Peter. Scripture
shows the first dispute over doctrine was settled by a Church council (Acts
15) presided over by the first Pope, Peter, who spoke first (Acts 15:7).
This is the scriptural model for settling disputes over doctrine. Peter is
listed first in every list of Apostles (Mt. 10:1-4, Mk. 3:16-19, Lk.
6:12-16, Acts 1:13), first to work a miracle in His name (Acts 3:6-7), and
first to proclaim the gospel (Acts 2:14-40).
Mary
Christ is the new Adam. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be
made to live" (1 Cor. 15:22). Mary is the new Eve (Gen. 3:15). As through
Eve all died, so through Mary all will live. A fallen angel deceived Eve, a
virgin (Gen.3:4), she disobeyed God and brought death to the world. A good
angel gave truth to a "virgin named Mary" (Lk. 1:27), she obeyed God and
brought Life to the world. Catholics worship only God, but they honor Mary
as their spiritual Mother (Rev. 12:1-17, Jn.19:26,27.). Mary is the Mother
of God (Lk.1:43, Jn.20:28). Therefore, she is greater than others who were
taken bodily to Heaven (Gen. 5:24, 2 Kings 2, Heb. 11:5-6). At the end of
her life, she was assumed into heaven. The Hail Mary prayer gives Mary the
same honor the Bible does in Lk.1:28,42 and fulfills Mary's prophesy (Lk.
1:48.) Christ kept the commandment of "Honor your Father and Mother." He
honored Mary. When we honor Mary our adopted Mother (Rv.12:17, Jn.19:26), we
imitate Christ our adopted brother (Jn. 1:12). Christ is our only
intercessor with the Father, but Mary can intercede (pray for us) with her
Son Jesus. He worked His first miracle at her request (Jn. 2:1-12). We can
ask others to pray for us, especially if they are a saint in Heaven. "A
good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Therefore, by their fruits you will know them." (Mt. 7:17-20). Catholics,
and some Protestant denominations, find devotion to Mary bears the good
fruits of increased faith in Christ, fidelity to God's commandments, grace,
and love of God. As a builder is honored when someone admires his work, so
too is God honored when we honor Mary. God loves us to honor Mary as a
Father is pleased when his daughter is honored. All the honor we give to
Mary is reflected back to God since we honor her for what He has done for
her, with her, and through her. When we honor her, we honor Him.
Salvation
Are there different degrees of sin? "Therefore, whoever breaks the least of
these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in
heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called
great." (Mt. 5:19) Jesus said to Pilate "You would have no power over Me if
it had not been given to you from above. For this reason, the one who handed
Me over to you has the greater sin." (Jn. 19:11).
Can we be certain we are saved, or must we hope? Jesus said to the Apostles
as He commissioned them "You will be hated by all because of My name, but
whoever endures to the end will be saved." (Mt. 10:22). Jesus said to His
disciples about the end "...the one who perseveres to the end will be
saved." (Mt. 24:13. See also 1 Cor. 9:26-27, 10:12, Phil. 3:10-16.)
Does God want works to accompany faith? "What good is it my brothers, if
someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and
one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,' but you do
not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of
itself, if it does not have good works, is dead..." (Jam. 2:14-26). Jesus
said " not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, did we not prophesy in Your
name? Did we not drive out demons in Your name? Did we not do mighty deeds
in Your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you.
Depart from me you evildoers.' " (Mt.7:21-23) Jesus said to His disciples
"For the Son of Man will come with angels in His father's glory, and he will
repay everyone in accordance with his conduct." (Mt. 16:27). Jesus answered
the rich young man, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.
You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you
shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother; and you shall
love your neighbor as yourself." (Mt. 19:16-19) (Mt. 25:31-46, Dan. 4:24,
Rev.14:13, 20:13).
Seven Sacraments
Baptism: Jesus said to the eleven "Go therefore, and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
(Mt.28:19).
Confession: "He who conceals his sins prospers not, but he who confesses
them and forsakes them obtains mercy." (Prv. 28:13) Jesus said to the
Apostles after His resurrection "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you
forgive, are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
(Jn.20:23).
Eucharist: "While the disciples were eating, Jesus took the bread, said the
blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said 'Take and eat; this
is My Body.' Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying,
'Drink from it all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which will
be shed for you in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins'"
(Mt.26:26-28, Jn.6).
Confirmation: Now when the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and
prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for He had not yet
fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the
Lord, Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 8, 14-17)
Marriage: Jesus said to the Pharisees, "God made them male and female. For
this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall
become as one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no man must
separate..." (Mk. 10:2-12).
Holy Orders: "Melchizedek, king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and
being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abraham with these words..."
(Gen. 14:18) "In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified Himself in
becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to Him: 'You are My Son;
this day I have begotten you' just as He says in another place 'You are a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.'" (Heb. 5:5-10, Lk.
22:19, Acts 14:22).
Anointing of Sick: "Is any among you sick? He should summon the priests of
the Church and they should pray over him and anoint with oil in the name of
the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord
will raise him up. If he has committed any sins they will be forgiven."
(Jam. 5:14-15).
Why call Priests Father? St Paul wrote "I am writing this not to shame you,
but to admonish you as my children. Even if you should have countless guides
to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in
Christ Jesus through the Gospel." (1 Cor. 4:14-15). St Paul also wrote "You
recall brothers our toil and drudgery. Working night and day in order to not
burden any of you we proclaimed to you the Gospel of God. You are witness
and so is God, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved toward you
believers. As you know we treated each one of you as a father treats his
children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct
yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into His kingdom of glory." (1
Thes. 2:9-12).
Why are Priests celibate? When the disciples questioned Jesus about not
marrying, He said "Some are incapable of marriage, because they were born
so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have
renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Mt. 19:12)
Jesus said to the Apostles "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has
given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of
the kingdom of God who will not receive an overabundant return..." (Lk.
18:29-30)
Morality
Abortion: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born
I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you." (Jer. 1:5) The
angel said to Zechariah before the birth of John the Baptist "...for he will
be great in the sight of Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink.
He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." (Lk.
1:15) "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb,
and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit" (Lk. 1:41) "For at the
moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb
leaped for joy." (Lk. 1:44) "You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my
mother's womb." (Ps. 139:13)
Fornication (pre-marital sex): Jesus said to His "For from the heart come
evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, and
blasphemy." (Mt. 15:19) "Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or
greedy person, that is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God." (Eph. 5:5,6).
Contraception (Artificial birth control): "God blessed male and female,
saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it...'"(Gen.
1:28) Children too are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb, a
reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's
youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full." (Ps. 127:3-5) Then Judah
said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty
as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." Onan however,
knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had
relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to
avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended
the Lord, and the Lord took his life too." (Gen. 38:8-10).
Pax
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:735100E5C21A475A.49C9CA76...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> ihug wrote:
>
> > I agree. But (and I'm not saying you are) many seem to judge catholics
as
> > if it is there fault.
> >
> > Catholics are in the unfortunate position of having been taught these
> > things, to a large extent, many of them are not even aware that these
things
> > are going on.
> >
> > Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic
church
> > tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with the
bible.
> > The church hopes you will not read your bible.
>
> I mostly agree.
> However, it is up to individual catholics to "seek the Truth" instead of
> listening to "traditions of men".
>
> John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life: and
> they are they which testify of me.
>
> Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they
> received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures
daily,
> whether those things were so.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
Fringe4
> please read my previous message. Your response ignores it totally.
>
> Thank you
>
> Stephen
Thats because you don't get his meaning, so you never respond to his actual
point.
Yours, Fringe4
Pied Piper
Catholics reject your Bible only man made theology.
Bible Only Theory
Why does the Catholic Church reject the Bible only theory? The word
"Catholic", meaning universal, was first written in 110 A.D. by a Bishop
named St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote, "where Christ is, there is the
Catholic Church". The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. It is the first
and oldest Christian church. All Protestant churches can trace their
origins to the 1500's when a Catholic monk named Martin Luther proposed the
Bible only theory. He was warned that it is a logical fallacy because the
Bible cannot interpret itself, (Acts8:27-31, 2Pt.1:20,21,3:16) it must have
an interpreter. The many divisions among Protestant churches bear witness
to that fact. The scripture itself does not say it is the sole source of
revelation. He was successful only because of the recent invention of the
printing press. Before then, it was a physical impossibility to put a Bible
in every hand. None of the apostles ever had a copy of the New Testament,
and its books were disputed for 400 years.
Graven Images
Do Catholics Worship Statues?
"Catholics worship statues!" Despite how ridiculous the claim is, people
still make this accusation. They say that because Catholics have statues in
their churches and pray in front of them, they are violating God's
commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness
of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is
in water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex.
20:4-5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for
themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
This tract will examine the standard Fundamentalist arguments against the
ancient Christian practice of using images, and it will as provide a brief
biblical response to these arguments, showing the Scriptural evidence for
this practice.
First, let's point out that it's right to warn people against the sin of
idolatry. But the accusation that Catholics are idolaters because they have
images of Christ and the saints is completely incorrect, being based on a
misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and
use (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, claims
that it is a sin to have statues because "God has forbidden the use of
images in worship" (p. 281). Many Protestants embrace this claim, yet if
they were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find that
exactly the opposite is true. Not only did God never condemn the use of
statues in worship (though to be sure he did condemn the worship of
statues), he actually commanded their use!
"HIDING" THE 2nd COMMANDMENT?
Another charge made by Protestants is that the Catholic Church "hides" the
second commandment. This is because in Catholic catechisms the first
commandment is: "You shall have no other Gods before me" (Ex. 20:3) and the
second is: "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain." (Ex. 20:7).
They argue that Catholics have deleted the prohibition of idolatry in order
to justify their use of religious statues.
But this is false. The fact is, Catholics simply group the commandments
differently than Protestants traditionally have and abbreviate them for ease
of memorization.
That such abbreviating is reasonable to Protestants is demonstrated by their
common rendering of the Sabbath Commandment as simply, "Remember the Sabbath
to keep it holy," though the actual text of the commandment is quite
lengthy: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall
labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord
your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your
daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the
sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day;
therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" (Ex. 20:8-11).
Martin Luther recognized that the statements "You shall have no other gods
before me" (Ex. 20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself a graven image"
(Ex. 20:4) are in fact two parts of a single command, and he abbreviated
them to "You shall have no other gods before me."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that "The division and
numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The
present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by
St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is
also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a
slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and
Reformed communities" (CCC 2066).
Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15-18, which says "[S]ince you
saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst
of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for
yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the
likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird
that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground,
the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." They try to
use this text to "prove" the prohibition of statues and images.
We've already shown that God doesn't prohibit the making of statues or
images of various creatures (e.g. angels, serpents, oxen, flowers, lions,
etc.) for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kings 6:29-32; 8:6-67; 2 Chr. 3:7-14).
But what about statues or images that represent God himself? Many
Protestants would say that that's wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says God has
no form, therefore we should not attempt to make images of him. But does
Deuteronomy 4 actually forbid these kinds of images of the Lord?
THE ANSWER IS NO
Early in its history Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God
because he had not (yet) revealed himself in a visible form. Had the
Israelites made depictions of God, they might have been tempted to worship
him in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the
sun) just as the pagans around them worshipped such images.
But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9:
"As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his
seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure
wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire."
Protestants themselves make depictions of the Father under this form when
they do illustrations of the Old Testament prophecies.
The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms--that of a
dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John
1:32)--and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).
Protestants make use of these images (especially the dove) when drawing or
painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins
or place dove emblems on their cars.
But more importantly, notice that in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God
showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, "He is the image (Greek: ikon)
of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation." Christ himself is the
tangible divine "icon" of the unseen, infinite God of the universe.
We read of the Magi that when the were "going into the house they saw the
child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then,
opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and
myrrh" (Matt. 2:11).
The bottom line is, Protestants too use all sorts of religious images:
Pictures of Jesus and other biblical personages appear on a myriad of
Bibles, biblical picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting
cards, CDs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented
through the Icthus symbol--the "fish" emblem popular among American
Evangelicals.
Common sense tells us that since God has revealed himself in various images,
most especially in the Incarnate Jesus Christ, we realize that it's not
wrong for us to make use of images of these forms to strengthen and deepen
our knowledge and love of God. That's exactly the purpose that Catholic
statues of Jesus and the saints have: They are images that represent persons
we cannot see with our physical eyes.
Mary is not now nor has ever been a member of the trinity. She is not
Co-remptrix or any other fundie lie. She is the mother of God, and was
rewarded by God for her devotion.
Mary
As for your dear Auntie she is either very uninformed or some you made up to
attempt and lend your Jack Chick tract some credibility.
Pax
"ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8m84pl$9po$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Pied Piper" <ok...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:ugMh5.8212$a61.5...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > No CB and Ithug Catholicism agrees with the Bible. It is your false
> > doctrines of men that place there authority on a book rather than
Christ.
>
> The Bible is God's word it is more than just a book. It is inspired by
God
> (all scripture is God breathed) to lead us to Him.
>
> If Catholicism agrees with the Bible, how is it then that they have
changed
> the ten commandments to their own beliefs? Take for example the 2nd
> commandment. Do not make any graven image unto thee. Catholics use all
> sorts of images of Christ etc and worship them.
>
> The tenth commandment has also been split into two by catholics.
>
> Now the Catholic church has stated that it is trying to change the trinity
> to include Mary. Mary is not part of the trinity, the Bible says that God
> the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit make up the trinity. A
> trinity does not have four people in it either.
>
> Catholics believe that by going to the priest and having confession and
> saying hail mary a few times forgives them of their sins. The Bible
states
> that only God can give forgiveness. The priest isn't God is he? I don't
> see anywhere in the Bible that says go to your priest and say hail mary a
> few times and I will forgive you of your sins.
>
> The catholics have a heirachy in the church, God, Jesus, Mary, The Pope,
The
> cardinals etc.., priests, catholics, satan. The Bible says that the
church
> is Christ's bride. The church is His, and therefore there should be no
> heirarchy. The Pope is worshipped etc... Why? God should be worshipped
> according to the Bible, yet they worship the Pope.
>
> This is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a romam
> catholic.
>
> How then do catholics agree with the Bible when they have changed it so
> much?
>
> Love and blessings
> Stephen
ihug
religion are just plain wrong. But I definitely don't hate the people, any
of them.
The bible clearly states that there is unity in the body of Christ.
How can any one, who says they hate all catholics remove themselves from
other prejudices?
Hence, I suggest we discuss our differences with love and friendship, not
with hatred.
Love and blessings
Stephen
"SumBuny4Me" <Rous...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
news:QVHh5.87099$Yr4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> "John T. Stevenson" <jste...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:7xqh5.2181$GL3.2...@news2.mia...
>
> > I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has long
> > since departed from the teachings of the Scriptures, there would be no
> > Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which to
> > protest.
> >
> > The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The
authority
> > of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
> > submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
>
>
>
ihug
Thank you
Stephen
"NetZero" <ok...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:F4Jh5.7614$a61.5...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> Yes the unity of 1 church not 10,000 Protestant sects each with there own
> beliefs.
>
>
> Pax
>
>
>
> "ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8m7l2p$htn$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
ihug
if it is there fault.
Catholics are in the unfortunate position of having been taught these
things, to a large extent, many of them are not even aware that these things
are going on.
Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic church
tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with the bible.
The church hopes you will not read your bible.
Also, some 'catholic' churches are not true catholic churches. They do
actually follow the bible.
Please, keep an open mind, don't take any ones word for it except God's.
The pope can be wrong, I can be wrong, but God is NEVER wrong.
Please send any questions or comments to this newsgroup, lets have a
christian discussion, ok?
Love and blessings
Stephen
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:523B7E5A2F443D2F.8B484B7C...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> Fringe4 wrote:
>
> >
> > The Pope is not above the scripture.
>
> You finally got something right.
>
> > He interprets the scripture according
> > to Gods will.
>
> Wrong.
> He misinterprets it prove the false doctrine of catholicism.
>
> > But the Protestants don't want to hear that. Because the Pope
> > tells them things they don't want to hear, they rebel. Thats the basis
of
> > the Protestant Reformation.
>
> Wrong again.
> The basis of the reformation is a "return to Truth".
> And we all know how much the rcc hates truth.
>
> >
> >
> > Yours, Fringe4
>
OCM87
>> of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were
>> submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
>
ihug
"Pied Piper" <ok...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ugMh5.8212$a61.5...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> No CB and Ithug Catholicism agrees with the Bible. It is your false
> doctrines of men that place there authority on a book rather than Christ.
The Bible is God's word it is more than just a book. It is inspired by God
Love and blessings
Stephen
>
>
Joseph Meehan
He misinterprets it prove the false doctrine of catholicism.
This you can argue all you want, but you will never have any proof.
It is a matter of faith. Scripture and history support it, but in the
end, like many things it takes faith to believe, you will never believe
unless you find faith.
Of course you are spinning your wheels trying to prove it false as
well. The only people who you will convince are those who believe more
in you than in the Catholic Church. Anyone who would believe more in
you than in the Catholic Church is not likely to believe it in the first
place.
--
Dia's Muire duit
Joe M
Joseph Meehan
Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic
church tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with
the bible. The church hopes you will not read your bible.
We all hope all Catholics and not Catholics as well, read the Bible
(The whole Bible) and not ignore things like:
1:2 Peter 1
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a
matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved
by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce
destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing
swift destruction upon themselves.
Joseph Meehan
Catholics use all sorts of images of Christ etc and worship them.
That typical statement from Catholic hate literature, only proves
you don't understand the Catholic faith you have been taught (by men) to
hate. The simple fact is Catholics do not worship images.
As for images (Icons) are you not now reading this message on a
computer and using images to control that computer?
Begin Quote
.
Now the Catholic church has stated that it is trying to change the
trinity to include Mary.
End Quote
You better ask yourself where that one came from and realized that
source is on a par with the little green men theories. Again it only
shows how many lies your teachers are telling you about the Catholic
Church.
Begin Quote
Catholics believe that by going to the priest and having confession and
saying hail mary a few times forgives them of their sins. The Bible
states that only God can give forgiveness. The priest isn't God is he?
I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says go to your priest and say
hail mary a few times and I will forgive you of your sins.
End Quote
Again you need to question your teachers and ask them why they never
taught you:
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you
shall retain, they are retained' (John, xx, 21-23)
To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xvi, 19). Later He says to all the
Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth,
shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon
earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xviii, 18).
Begin Quote
The catholics have a heirachy in the church, God, Jesus, Mary, The
Pope, The cardinals etc.., priests, catholics, satan. The Bible says
that the church is Christ's bride. The church is His, and therefore
there should be no heirarchy. The Pope is worshipped etc... Why? God
should be worshipped according to the Bible, yet they worship the Pope.
End Quote
Sorry, this is just so far out that I can't make enough sense of it
to answer.
Begin Quote
This is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a
romam catholic.
End Quote
It would seem you have only proven that either you did not
understand what your aunty said, or that not every Roman Catholic
understands their religion.
Begin Quote
How then do catholics agree with the Bible when they have changed it so
much?
End Quote
That questions assumes that Catholics have changed the Bible. How
do you figure THEY have changed the Bible and that the Bible you have
been comparing it to is the one that has been "changed?" I fact both
are changed since they had to be translated, unless you are reading it
in the original language in which it was written. Translating requires
decisions in the process since many words or ideas just don't have a
simple one to one relationship.
ihug
I did not say that they are idolators because they have images of Christ, I
said that they worshipped them and that makes them idolators.
if you cannot rebuke someone without insulting them, perhaps you
shouldn't rebuke them.
I don't have to make up anything, I know what the bible says. what makes
you think that you are right about everything? i simply asked questions and
stated some things that a catholic themself has told me and you tell me that
by doing this I am a liar and making things up. I don't think so. Have
some respect for others and their opinions. If you have any valid
opposition then please do make it, but insults are not valid opposition.
By all means, Mary deserves respect, but she is not God. She is, of
herself, no better then any other person.
Love and blessings
Stephen
OCM87
Well is that supposed to be any news........that a catholic would reject the
teachings of the New Testament.
>The word
>"Catholic", meaning universal, was first written in 110 A.D. by a Bishop
>named St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote, "where Christ is, there is the
>Catholic Church".
To this I will respond thusly: I John 2:18,19 "Little children, it is the last
time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many
antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us,
but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have
continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that
they were not all of us." I'm not sure as to exactly when this was written.
But even it you use the standard dating that denominations would have one use,
they would tell you that it was written around A.D. 90. Jerusalem fell in A.D.
70.
If the A.D.90 date is correct, then could it be possible that John was warning
against people like your beloved St. Ignatius?
OCM87
>while the Vulgate version of St. Jerome had existed since around 400
>A.D. no one except clergy had access to it.
And there lies a gigantic problem........."only the clergy had it". Had the
people had it they would have thrown up when the priests got up to speak,
because they would have known that they were being taught damnation.
>Consider the protestant arguement of scriptural
>authority prior to 200 A.D. when most of the new testement source
>documents were written. If one were to say to Paul or Peter or James
>etc. that their authoritative epistles had no scriptural basis. You
>would be right, did that make them unchristian?
No it did not, because they were "inspired" men. They were told by the Holy
Spirit what to write. They put pen to paper, but they were not responsible for
what doctrine was put there. What man has written since, however, has been
uninspired.
Fringe4
Holy
> Spirit what to write. They put pen to paper, but they were not
responsible for
> what doctrine was put there. What man has written since, however, has
been
> uninspired.
I'm wondering where they got this "doctrine" to start with. To me, its a
bunch of BS.
However, even if it were true, that would fall under the occultic practices
of divination or channeling or automatic writing. Same as using a Ouija
board.
Yours, Fringe4
Pied Piper
Fundies only believe the parts of the Bible that agree with thier man made
theology is inspired.
Pax
"Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w9Sh5.1363$IX6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Begin Quote
> Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic
> church tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with
> the bible. The church hopes you will not read your bible.
> End Quote
>
> We all hope all Catholics and not Catholics as well, read the Bible
> (The whole Bible) and not ignore things like:
>
> 1:2 Peter 1
> 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a
> matter of one's own interpretation,
> 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved
> by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
> 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
> also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce
> destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing
> swift destruction upon themselves.
>
>
>
Fringe4
> shouldn't rebuke them.
> I don't have to make up anything, I know what the bible says. what makes
> you think that you are right about everything? i simply asked questions
and
> stated some things that a catholic themself has told me and you tell me
that
> by doing this I am a liar and making things up. I don't think so. Have
> some respect for others and their opinions. If you have any valid
> opposition then please do make it, but insults are not valid opposition.
>
> By all means, Mary deserves respect, but she is not God. She is, of
> herself, no better then any other person.
>
> Love and blessings
>
> Stephen
Stephen, what Pied Piper says is true. I was an altar boy, born, raised and
confirmed a RC (am not now though). What he states is true about the RC's.
Try to educate yourself about what Catholics really believe instead of
buying into the "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" attitude that most
Catholic haters tend to take.
Yours, Fringe4
Pied Piper
Bible, it was the unified Catholic church that decided what was Cannon,
before it split into the two churches we have today. Try reading, open your
mind and clear the hate from your soul.
Good we agree the Mother of God reserves respect and that is all Catholics
afford her. We pray for her to intercede on our behalf, as she was assumed
into heaven by the Lord for her devotion to God and her Son and is Blessed
among women. We do not worship her and if you persist in this lie, I will
become far less cordial.
As for your whiny reply, we have heard all these lies thousands of times
over years in this group, and we have proven then false ad nauseum. You
claim truth through the Bible, but my dear boy truth doesn't come from the
Bible alone but through the faith in Christ and the church he created.
Read what was posted and open your heart, perhaps some truth will seep in.
I have a feeling though you are here like all the fundies before you merely
to perpetuate lies and stir up an argument. Well sonny if it is an argument
you want you have come to the right place. As any Catholic in here will
tell you I love the good fight, and I will by what ever means necessary
defend the Church and drive heretics from our midst.
"ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8m96ia$1ki$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
OCM87
>confirmed a RC (am not now though).
Well why not? If you are advocating what comes out of the mouth of
catholicism, then why aren't you yourself still under their "watchful eyes"?
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:32:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Begin Quote
> > The issue for Protestants has always been one of authority: The
> >authority of the Scriptures versus the authority of the Pope.
> >End Quote
> >
> > In some cases it was their interpretation vs. the interpretation of
> >the Church, however it was often more a matter of civil authority vs.
> >the authority of the Church. This is most sad. Look at the example of
> >the Church of England. The pride and civil power hunger of both the
> >civil leaders and sad to say, those of Church leaders has lead to many
> >separations.
>
> b/c henry VIII wanted ANOTHER divorce and the church said no?
Wanting to break your vows before God most certainly is a problem of
pride.
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. Eusebius of Vercelli (Bishop)
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
Theodore M. Seeber
mailto:see...@aracnet.com
Emergency Address (100 bytes or less) mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
Tired of Dubba Bush and Gore, and you still have several months of
campaigning to get through? Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
-Unofficial UN motto.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Fringe4 wrote:
>
> >
> > The Pope is not above the scripture.
>
> You finally got something right.
>
> > He interprets the scripture according
> > to Gods will.
>
> Wrong.
Right, and unlike you who misinterpret it to prove the false doctrines of
CB.
> He misinterprets it prove the false doctrine of catholicism.
Catholicism is a PUBLIC interpretation. CB is a private
interpretation. Shall we see what the Bible says for whose interpretation
is true?
2Pet.1
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.
NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
There goes you're ability to interpret scripture. The Bible guarantees
that private interpretation is false.
> > But the Protestants don't want to hear that. Because the Pope
> > tells them things they don't want to hear, they rebel. Thats the basis of
> > the Protestant Reformation.
>
> Wrong again.
> The basis of the reformation is a "return to Truth".
Then return to the truth, start following the PUBLIC interpretation rather
than your personal PRIVATE interpretation.
The reformation is a failure, all it has produced is 30,000 lies, no
truth.
Theodore M. Seeber
> timo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Interesting how you don't have one Scripture with the word "authority" in it.
> You had to go to "traditions of men" for that.
> You are again proven a liar.
Let's test that theory, shall we? I found 109 verses with the word
"Authority" in them, from all 77 books of the Bible. NOT A SINGLE ONE
ASIGNS ANY AUTHORITY AT ALL TO SCRIPTURE.
Here are the 109 verses. Check them out and see how they read in your
Bible. Then tell me, according to the Bible, can Scripture have any
authority at all?
Gen.41
[35] And let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming,
and lay up grain under the authority of Pharaoh for food in the cities,
and let them keep it.
Num.5
[19] Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, `If no man has
lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness, while you
were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness
that brings the curse.
[20] But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's
authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your
husband has lain with you,
[29] "This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her
husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself,
Num.27
[20] You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the
congregation of the people of Israel may obey.
2Chr.8
[10] And these were the chief officers of King Solomon, two hundred and
fifty, who exercised authority over the people.
2Chr.28
[7] And Zichri, a mighty man of E'phraim, slew Ma-asei'ah the king's son
and Azri'kam the commander of the palace and Elka'nah the next in
authority to the king.
Esth.9
[29] Then Queen Esther, the daughter of Ab'ihail, and Mor'decai the Jew
gave full written authority, confirming this second letter about Purim.
Prov.29
[2] When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
[16] When the wicked are in authority, transgression increases;
but the righteous will look upon their downfall.
Qoh.8
[8] No man has power to retain the spirit, or authority over the day of
death; there is no discharge from war, nor will wickedness deliver those
who are given to it.
Isa.22
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on
him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
1Esdr.8
[22] You are also informed that no tribute or any other tax is to be laid
on any of the priests or Levites or temple singers or gatekeepers or
temple servants or persons employed in this temple, and that no one has
authority to impose any tax upon them.
AddEsth.13
[2] "Having become ruler of many nations and master of the whole world,
not elated with presumption of authority but always acting reasonably and
with kindness, I have determined to settle the lives of my subjects in
lasting tranquillity and, in order to make my kingdom peaceable and open
to travel throughout all its extent, to re-establish the peace which all
men desire.
AddEsth.16
[5] And often many of those who are set in places of authority have been
made in part responsible for the shedding of innocent blood, and have been
involved in irremediable calamities, by the persuasion of friends who have
been entrusted with the administration of public affairs,
[7] "What has been wickedly accomplished through the pestilent behavior of
those who exercise authority unworthily, can be seen not so much from the
more ancient records which we hand on as from investigation of matters
close at hand.
Wis.10
[14] and when he was in prison she did not leave him,
until she brought him the scepter of a kingdom
and authority over his masters.
Those who accused him she showed to be false,
and she gave him everlasting honor.
Wis.14
[21] And this became a hidden trap for mankind,
because men, in bondage to misfortune or to royal authority,
bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name
that ought not to be shared.
Sir.17
[2] He gave to men few days, a limited time,
but granted them authority over the things upon the earth.
Sir.30
[11] Give him no authority in his youth,
and do not ignore his errors.
Sir.45
[8] He clothed him with superb perfection,
and strengthened him with the symbols of authority,
the linen breeches, the long robe, and the ephod.
[17] In his commandments he gave him
authority and statutes and judgments,
to teach Jacob the testimonies,
and to enlighten Israel with his law.
1Mac.6
[28] The king was enraged when he heard this. He assembled all his
friends, the commanders of his forces and those in authority.
1Mac.10
[6] So Demetrius gave him authority to recruit troops, to equip them with
arms, and to become his ally; and he commanded that the hostages in the
citadel should be released to him.
[8] They were greatly alarmed when they heard that the king had given him
authority to recruit troops.
[35] No one shall have authority to exact anything from them or annoy any
of them about any matter.
[38] "As for the three districts that have been added to Judea from the
country of Samaria, let them be so annexed to Judea that they are
considered to be under one ruler and obey no other authority but the high
priest.
[70] "You are the only one to rise up against us, and I have become a
laughingstock and reproach because of you. Why do you assume authority
against us in the hill country?
2Mac.3
[24] But when he arrived at the treasury with his bodyguard, then and
there the Sovereign of spirits and of all authority caused so great a
manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were
astounded by the power of God, and became faint with terror.
2Mac.4
[9] In addition to this he promised to pay one hundred and fifty more if
permission were given to establish by his authority a gymnasium and a body
of youth for it, and to enrol the men of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch.
[24] But he, when presented to the king, extolled him with an air of
authority, and secured the high priesthood for himself, outbidding Jason
by three hundred talents of silver.
2Mac.7
[16] But he looked at the king, and said, "Because you have authority
among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think
that God has forsaken our people.
2Mac.15
[13] Then likewise a man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and
dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority.
3Mac.7
[1] "King Ptolemy Philopator to the generals in Egypt and all in authority
in his government, greetings and good health.
[12] The king then, admitting and approving the truth of what they said,
granted them a general license so that freely and without royal authority
or supervision they might destroy those everywhere in his kingdom who had
transgressed the law of God.
4Mac.4
[5] On receiving authority to deal with this matter, he proceeded quickly
to our country accompanied by the accursed Simon and a very strong
military force.
[6] He said that he had come with the king's authority to seize the
private funds in the treasury.
4Mac.8
[7] Trust me, then, and you will have positions of authority in my
government if you will renounce the ancestral tradition of your national
life.
Matt.7
[29] for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their
scribes.
Matt.8
[9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to
one, `Go,' and he goes, and to another, `Come,' and he comes, and to my
slave, `Do this,' and he does it."
Matt.9
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to
forgive sins" -- he then said to the paralytic -- "Rise, take up your bed
and go home."
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who
had given such authority to men.
Matt.10
[1] And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over
unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every
infirmity.
Matt.20
[25] But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority
over them.
Matt.21
[23] And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of
the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority
are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?"
[24] Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you a question; and if you tell
me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these
things.
[27] So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them,
"Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
Matt.28
[18] And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me.
Mark.1
[22] And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one
who had authority, and not as the scribes.
[27] And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves,
saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the
unclean spirits, and they obey him."
Mark.2
[10] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to
forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic --
Mark.3
[15] and have authority to cast out demons:
Mark.6
[7] And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by
two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.
Mark.10
[42] And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those
who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their
great men exercise authority over them.
Mark.11
[28] and they said to him, "By what authority are you doing these things,
or who gave you this authority to do them?"
[29] Jesus said to them, "I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will
tell you by what authority I do these things.
[33] So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them,
"Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Luke.4
[6] and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their
glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.
[32] and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word was with
authority.
[36] And they were all amazed and said to one another, "What is this
word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and
they come out."
Luke.5
[24] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to
forgive sins" -- he said to the man who was paralyzed -- "I say to you,
rise, take up your bed and go home."
Luke.7
[8] For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say
to one, `Go,' and he goes; and to another, `Come,' and he comes; and to my
slave, `Do this,' and he does it."
Luke.9
[1] And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority
over all demons and to cure diseases,
Luke.10
[19] Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt
you.
Luke.19
[17] And he said to him, `Well done, good servant! Because you have been
faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.'
Luke.20
[2] and said to him, "Tell us by what authority you do these things, or
who it is that gave you this authority."
[8] And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I
do these things."
[20] So they watched him, and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere,
that they might take hold of what he said, so as to deliver him up to the
authority and jurisdiction of the governor.
Luke.22
[25] And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
John.5
[27] and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the
Son of man.
[30] "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my
judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who
sent me.
John.7
[17] if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the
teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
[18] He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who
seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no
falsehood.
John.8
[28] So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will
know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak
thus as the Father taught me.
John.12
[49] For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has
himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.
John.14
[10] Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The
words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father
who dwells in me does his works.
John.16
[13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the
truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears
he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Acts.1
[7] He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the
Father has fixed by his own authority.
Acts.9
[14] and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call
upon thy name."
Acts.25
[5] "So," said he, "let the men of authority among you go down with me,
and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them accuse him."
Acts.26
[10] And I did so in Jerusalem; I not only shut up many of the saints in
prison, by authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to
death I cast my vote against them.
[12] "Thus I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of
the chief priests.
Rom.13
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is
no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by
God.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you
have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you
will receive his approval,
1Cor.9
[8] Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same?
1Cor.15
[24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father
after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
2Cor.10
[8] For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord
gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to
shame.
2Cor.11
[17] (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool,
in this boastful confidence;
2Cor.13
[10] I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I
may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has
given me for building up and not for tearing down.
Eph.1
[21] far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above
every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is
to come;
Col.2
[10] and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all
rule and authority.
1Tim.2
[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to
keep silent.
Tit.2
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no
one disregard you.
2Pet.2
[10] and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and
despise authority. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the
glorious ones,
3John.1
[9] I have written something to the church; but Diot'rephes, who likes to
put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.
Jude.1
[8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh,
reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.
[25] to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory,
majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for
ever. Amen.
Rev.12
[10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and
the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have
come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses
them day and night before our God.
Rev.13
[2] And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a
bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave
his power and his throne and great authority.
[4] Men worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast,
and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who can
fight against it?"
[5] And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous
words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months;
[7] Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And
authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation,
[12] It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence,
and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose
mortal wound was healed.
Rev.17
[12] And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet
received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one
hour, together with the beast.
[13] These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the
beast;
Rev.18
[1] After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great
authority; and the earth was made bright with his splendor.
semper...@my-deja.com
oc...@aol.com (OCM87) wrote:
> >and
> >while the Vulgate version of St. Jerome had existed since around 400
> >A.D. no one except clergy had access to it.
>
> And there lies a gigantic problem........."only the clergy had it".
Had the
> people had it they would have thrown up when the priests got up to
speak,
> because they would have known that they were being taught damnation.
>
> >Consider the protestant arguement of scriptural
> >authority prior to 200 A.D. when most of the new testement source
> >documents were written. If one were to say to Paul or Peter or James
> >etc. that their authoritative epistles had no scriptural basis. You
> >would be right, did that make them unchristian?
>
the Holy
> Spirit what to write. They put pen to paper, but they were not
responsible for
> what doctrine was put there. What man has written since, however, has
been
> uninspired.
>
>
Oh, ther are none so blind...
Look, put yourself back in history to say, 70 A.D. And, let's give you
the advantage of living in (or near) Palestine. Here are the Romans
putting down rebelion all around you and crucifying so many Jews that
they are seriously deforesting the area. You belong to a sect of
Christians who because of your jewish traditions still hold to the
Mosaic law. Now this Gentile, Paul, who used to go around slaughtering
your friends by the thousands (well dozens) has sent a letter to the
leaders of your sect. How exactly do you know it is inspired? Is it
marked with some secret sign? Does it glow in the dark? Does it defy
gravity? No! By your faith in God you know it is inspired when your
Bishop reads it to the congregation. Do you get your own copy? Did
they have Xerox machines in those days to immediately copy and
distribute every written page that was sent out from Paul and Peter and
the others? Of course not! In short there was no New Testement in 70
A.D., or in 100 A.D, or in 400 A.D. There were however many writings
from many christians of the early times. It wasn't until St. Jerome set
about the tast of compiling these writings into a Library (Bible) that
Catholics had any "Scriptures" to agree on as inspired.
In addition, it would have made no difference whether or not the early
bibles were made available to the public or not, the only people who
were educated enough to read them were the rich or the clergy. This is
why so many men, and women sought out the life of the clerics. It was
an opportunity to get an education. As for the great uneducated masses,
the church did its best to teach them. This is why cathedrals were
built with great and elaborate art work and statuary which depicted
biblical tales and ideals. What the Protestants errantly call idolotry,
was an early attempt to inform the uneducated with images rather than
words. These too could be thought of as inpired, for it did help those
who looked to understand their faith a little better.
I see from your response that you have set yourself up as judge of
what is and is not inspired. Would you care to explain how it is that
you can be so sure about your judgement. My guess is that you are
merely repeating what someone else told you, because while the bible
does say that all scripture is inspired, it does not say only those
scriptures found in the Bible, nor does it say that there are no other
sources of inspiration.
Arrogance is a terrible thing, but a very human thing. I would refrain
from making rash and hurried judgements based on what someone has told
you out their own error.
Semperfinite.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Theodore M. Seeber
> I agree. But (and I'm not saying you are) many seem to judge catholics as
> if it is there fault.
>
> Catholics are in the unfortunate position of having been taught these
> things, to a large extent, many of them are not even aware that these things
> are going on.
>
> Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic church
> tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with the bible.
> The church hopes you will not read your bible.
I do. And I find you have just lied.
A test:
If the Bible is supposed to have authority, why is there no verse in
scripture that describes Scripture's AUTHORITY? We have a verse saying it
is USEFULL, but being usefull and being a commandment over mankind is two
entirely different things.
Just to get you started, here's every verse in the Catholic Bible (which
contains every verse of the Protestant Bibles as well) that mentions
authority. NOT A SINGLE VERSE gives authority to scripture, authority is
always given to God, Man, or Angel, but never to animals or scripture.
Theodore M. Seeber
> I was told these things by a catholic not by a teacher as you say.
Prove that this person was a Catholic that is actually IN COMPLIANCE WITH
ROME.
> i would
> have thought thast a catholic of all people would know about their faith.
Sadly, very few Catholics know about their faith. I didn't, until I
started researching your falsehoods.
> i
> do not hate catholics because as Jesus has commanded me to do so I love my
> neighbour.
Really? Then why do you lie about Catholics?
> Who are you to judge me? you keep telling me by what means i get my
> information, you keep telling me that i don't know anything. why can't you
> rebuke me without throwing in an insult?
Because a REBUKE is an INSULT, the two are one and the same.
> I don't worship the icons on my computer so what relevance does that have?
> it is not a valid point.
And Catholics don't worship the ICONS in their Churches.
> So you are saying that the catnolic church is a liar then?
No, but some individual Catholics are.
> because i was
> not taught lies by men about this.
Really? Can you prove that?
> perhaps you should get those little
> green men to teach you how to respect others.
There are no little green men.
> Your point about forgiveness is not valid either. People can forgive
> someone but they will not forget. God will forgive and forget. Are you
> saying God is a liar then? God says that only He can give forgiveness, and
> we give others forgiveness through Him.
Correct. Just as the priest does in the confessional.
> How do you even know what version I use?
If it doesn't have an imprimature, it's false.
If it has an imprimature, then tell us which Bishop made sure your Bible
is doctrinally correct.
> you make a lot of assumptions
> don't you. you have no respect for what others say and make flippant
> remarks regarding them. just because you disagree it doesn't mean you have
> to tell me i am an idiot and know nothing but you know everything. that's
> not a christian attitude.
True. Though to tell you that you are an idiot is not an insult, it's a
description.
> you assume too much, like you keep telling me about having all these
> teachers who make up lies etc...
They've been doing it ever since the Reformation.
> for goodness sake, you are telling me i am
> getting little green men theories, look at your own statements. i get my
> information from the Bible, and my teachers don't lie to me.
Yeah, sure. If they didn't lie, you'd be Catholic. All of Protestantism
is built on a lie.
> if you have a point to make, then make it with respect for others instead of
> just bashing them. there are ways of disagreeing with someone other than
> insulting them.
In that case, explain this lie of Protestantism, the one on which EVERY
Protestant Church is built:
Protestants claim authority for scripture. A search of the 77 books that
Christians have historically called scripture turned up 109 hits on the
word AUTHORITY. I'll show them to you right after this paragraph. An
interesting thing is that authority is NEVER given to scripture, but only
to God, Angels, and Man in that order. So where do Protestants get that
Scripture has authority, when Scripture claims no authority for itself?
Relevant 109 verses:
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
Theodore M. Seeber
> Brothers, I am by no means perfect. Nor is any one.
Good that you know this.
> All I am reporting is what I have seen in a few families of catholics, and
> what I know of the catholic faith in general.
I would point out that ALL members of the Catholic faith are sinners.
> I put it to you that all though you may not worship idols, some members of
> the catholic faith do.
Some do. Many (like Fr. Gruner of Fatima Crusader fame) have been kicked
out of the Church for it.
> I do not see a reason for all the abuse and division in the body of christ.
> We should not be fighting among ourselves, but rather against the enemy -
> Satan.
And those who worship idols, or who claim that all Catholics are the same,
are from the enemy.
> I know that some of the beliefs of catholics are in error, and also that
> some beliefs of Protestants is in error.
Especially some of the beliefs about Catholics.
> The problem is that many catholics believe they are going to heaven for
> their works.
Which is of course, Biblical. I would refer you to Matthew Chaper 25, and
James 2:1-17.
> They believe that by holding a more respected position in the
> church, they are better than others.
Part of the problem here is a lack of understanding of HOW one becomes
respected in the Catholic Church: By giving up all else to follow Christ,
like the Pope and Mother Thresea did.
> This is also in some cases an issue in
> other churches but it seems to be a common one in the catholic church.
In other churches, the different classes just start new churches. Ever
wonder why Negro Baptist Churches in the South have an average member
income of a mere $22,000, but Anglican Churches throughout the United
States have an average member income of $50,000?
It's classism, pure and simple.
> The truth is that we all have different gifts. One person may be the pope,
> and another an accomplished toilet cleaner. But God sees them as saved by
> grace, not by their position in the church.
Absolutely. And grace comes to those who are the most HUMBLE.
The Pope, by the way, has the offical title "Servant of the Servants of
God". He's not at the top of the hierarchy, he's at the bottom.
> I have heard that a group exists within the catholic church that would like
> to have Mary as part of the trinity.
That group has been excommunicated for their heresy.
> She is indeed worthy of respect, but
> no more than you or I.
Oh? Did you carry God in your womb?
Did you say "yes" to God, and in doing so, ruin your social standing and
any hope of EVER being respected?
That's what Mary did.
> I have said from the start that the problem is not with all catholics, but
> rather with some (I won't even say most) of them.
So far, all you've proven is that the problem is with a few ex-Catholics
who have been excommunicated and very vocal about thier lack of faith.
> The truth is that many are saved by grace, but many (in some chuches most)
> believe they will be saved by works, which is clearly not true.
Alone, it's clearly not true.
Saved by grace, through faith, which PRODUCES works, that's Biblical, and
that's Catholic. Those who reject works are entirely unbiblical.
> As for the issue of Holy Spirit inspiration, it does indeed occur to this
> day, but never in conflict with God's nature, or the bible.
Oh? I see MANY claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit who are DIRECTLY
in conflict with the Bible.
> Any spirit
> inspiration in conflict with this is either of yourself, or of the evil one.
Fully agreed. Especially your diatribe against works, which once again,
are Biblical in origin when put correctly (as the Pope has always done).
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. Eusebius of Vercelli (Bishop)
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
Paula
>
> I was told these things by a catholic not by a teacher as you say. i would
> have thought thast a catholic of all people would know about their faith. i
> do not hate catholics because as Jesus has commanded me to do so I love my
> neighbour.
>
Hmmm.. I'm glad to hear you love your neighbor.. no complaints there.
> Who are you to judge me? you keep telling me by what means i get my
> information, you keep telling me that i don't know anything. why can't you
> rebuke me without throwing in an insult?
>
> I don't worship the icons on my computer so what relevance does that have?
> it is not a valid point.
>
> So you are saying that the catnolic church is a liar then? because i was
> not taught lies by men about this. perhaps you should get those little
> green men to teach you how to respect others.
>
> Your point about forgiveness is not valid either. People can forgive
> someone but they will not forget. God will forgive and forget.
God will forgive, he will forgive a repentant soul. However, punishment
(purgatory) will still be there for those who have sinned and are
forgiven..so.. I suppose God won't forget, either.
Are you
> saying God is a liar then? God says that only He can give forgiveness, and
> we give others forgiveness through Him.
If you forgive someone for a wrong done unto you, on what grounds would
God hold that person accountable? You have the power to forgive someone
for the sins they commit against you. You have the power to evoke
benevolence from God towards the person who has sinned against you. If
you forgive, God forgives. If you do not forgive, God can not forgive.
When catholics confess their sins, their pennance usually involves
seeking out the person they have sinned against and seek forgiveness
from the one they have hurt.
Paula
>
> How do you even know what version I use? you make a lot of assumptions
> don't you. you have no respect for what others say and make flippant
> remarks regarding them. just because you disagree it doesn't mean you have
> to tell me i am an idiot and know nothing but you know everything. that's
> not a christian attitude.
>
> you assume too much, like you keep telling me about having all these
> teachers who make up lies etc... for goodness sake, you are telling me i am
> getting little green men theories, look at your own statements. i get my
> information from the Bible, and my teachers don't lie to me.
>
> if you have a point to make, then make it with respect for others instead of
> just bashing them. there are ways of disagreeing with someone other than
> insulting them.
>
> Love and blesings
>
> Stephen
>
> "Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3nSh5.1364$IX6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> > Begin Quote
> > Catholics use all sorts of images of Christ etc and worship them.
> > End Quote
> >
> > That typical statement from Catholic hate literature, only proves
> > you don't understand the Catholic faith you have been taught (by men) to
> > hate. The simple fact is Catholics do not worship images.
> >
> > As for images (Icons) are you not now reading this message on a
> > computer and using images to control that computer?
> >
> > Begin Quote
> > .
> >
> > Now the Catholic church has stated that it is trying to change the
> > trinity to include Mary.
> > End Quote
> >
> > You better ask yourself where that one came from and realized that
> > source is on a par with the little green men theories. Again it only
> > shows how many lies your teachers are telling you about the Catholic
> > Church.
> >
> > Begin Quote
> > Catholics believe that by going to the priest and having confession and
> > saying hail mary a few times forgives them of their sins. The Bible
> > states that only God can give forgiveness. The priest isn't God is he?
> > I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says go to your priest and say
> > hail mary a few times and I will forgive you of your sins.
> > End Quote
> >
> > Again you need to question your teachers and ask them why they never
> > taught you:
> >
> > Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you
> > shall retain, they are retained' (John, xx, 21-23)
> >
> > To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
> > heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
> > also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
> > loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xvi, 19). Later He says to all the
> > Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth,
> > shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon
> > earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xviii, 18).
> >
> > Begin Quote
> > The catholics have a heirachy in the church, God, Jesus, Mary, The
> > Pope, The cardinals etc.., priests, catholics, satan. The Bible says
> > that the church is Christ's bride. The church is His, and therefore
> > there should be no heirarchy. The Pope is worshipped etc... Why? God
> > should be worshipped according to the Bible, yet they worship the Pope.
> > End Quote
> >
> > Sorry, this is just so far out that I can't make enough sense of it
> > to answer.
> >
> > Begin Quote
> > This is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a
> > romam catholic.
> > End Quote
> >
> > It would seem you have only proven that either you did not
> > understand what your aunty said, or that not every Roman Catholic
> > understands their religion.
> >
> > Begin Quote
> > How then do catholics agree with the Bible when they have changed it so
> > much?
> > End Quote
> >
> > That questions assumes that Catholics have changed the Bible. How
> > do you figure THEY have changed the Bible and that the Bible you have
> > been comparing it to is the one that has been "changed?" I fact both
> > are changed since they had to be translated, unless you are reading it
> > in the original language in which it was written. Translating requires
> > decisions in the process since many words or ideas just don't have a
> > simple one to one relationship.
> >
> >
K. Stamm
> I completely agree. I am not a catholic, some things in the roman
catholic
> religion are just plain wrong. But I definitely don't hate the people,
any
> of them.
>
> The bible clearly states that there is unity in the body of Christ.
>
> How can any one, who says they hate all catholics remove themselves from
> other prejudices?
>
> Hence, I suggest we discuss our differences with love and friendship, not
> with hatred.
>
> Love and blessings
>
> Stephen
>
> "SumBuny4Me" <Rous...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
> news:QVHh5.87099$Yr4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > "John T. Stevenson" <jste...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:7xqh5.2181$GL3.2...@news2.mia...
> >
> > > I suggest that, were it not for the fact that the Roman Church has
long
> > > Protestant churches, for there would have been nothing against which
to
> > > protest.
> > >
> authority
> > > submissive to the Scriptures, there would be no issue.
> >
> >
> >
CB
Fringe4 wrote:
> > I mostly agree.
> > However, it is up to individual catholics to "seek the Truth" instead of
> > listening to "traditions of men".
>
> Then, if you go to church, and listen to men interpret the bible, are you
> doing wrong? These men (catholic scholars) are trained in religious history
> and interpretation. What makes you think that you are more learned in the
> ways of God than them?
You're kiddin', right?
If the bible says "have no other gods before Me" and a priest bows down and
worships a
statue, you really think they have any kind of understanding of God?
Also, "catholic scholar" is an oxymoron.
They are only trained in defending a lie.
>
>
> Yours, Fringe4
CB
ihug wrote:
Please don't be offended by PP.
Everyone knows he just likes to hear himself rant and rave.
He's kinda like the popes 2nd lieutenant: He keeps spouting off but no one pays
any attention to
him.
God bless you,
CB
CB
timo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Are you still here?
Someone told me you found the Truth.
I guess they lied.
BTW, Jesus IS the authority, as proven by the Scripture you quoted.
Pied Piper
it. Sola scriptura is a man made theology.
Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral
tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Pax
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000802...@shell1.aracnet.com...
Pied Piper
Church Christ created with a man made one that worships scripture.
Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral
tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Pax
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000802...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, CB wrote:
>
> Ted
>
> --
> On this day, the feast of St. Eusebius of Vercelli (Bishop)
> http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
> Theodore M. Seeber
Pied Piper
Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral
tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Sola fide
Jas 2:14-26 ... what good is faith w/o works?
Heb 10:26 ... must avoid sin.
Jas 5:20 ... "earning" forgiveness.
Lk 6:46; Mt 7:21; Mt 19:16-21 ... must do will of God.
1 Cor 9:27 ... "buffet my body ..."
Phil 2:12; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6-10, 13, 3:31; Mt 25:32-46; Gal 6:6-10
... works have merit.
1 Jn 2:3-4; 1 Jn 3:24; 1 Jn 5:3 ... keep commandments.
Pax
"ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mabv8$ldq$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> Brother, it seems clear that you are not really interested in any peaceful
> discussion, just in proving yourself right at any cost.
>
> I have no interest in wasting time talking to any one with such an
attitude.
>
> But I will say this. Works are indeed biblical, but never in obtaining
> salvation. Works play no part whatsoever in salvation. By grace are we
> saved, through grace, and not that of ourselves, it is a gift of God.
>
> Love and blessings
>
> Stephen
>
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000802...@shell1.aracnet.com...
CB
Pied Piper wrote:
> No CB and Ithug Catholicism agrees with the Bible.
No it doesn't.
Next????!!!!
Pied Piper
and play elsewhere.
Pax
"ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ma763$dej$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> I was told these things by a catholic not by a teacher as you say. i
would
> have thought thast a catholic of all people would know about their faith.
i
> do not hate catholics because as Jesus has commanded me to do so I love my
> neighbour.
>
> Who are you to judge me? you keep telling me by what means i get my
> information, you keep telling me that i don't know anything. why can't
you
> rebuke me without throwing in an insult?
>
> I don't worship the icons on my computer so what relevance does that have?
> it is not a valid point.
>
> So you are saying that the catnolic church is a liar then? because i was
> not taught lies by men about this. perhaps you should get those little
> green men to teach you how to respect others.
>
> Your point about forgiveness is not valid either. People can forgive
> someone but they will not forget. God will forgive and forget. Are you
> saying God is a liar then? God says that only He can give forgiveness,
and
> we give others forgiveness through Him.
>
iceberg3k
Either contribute or shut the fuck up.
-- Mark
-ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
-"Purpose of karate: Make perfect person." - Shihan Fumio Demura
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Pied Piper
Pax
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52F8E372A703D871.0CACBBF4...@lp.airnews.net...
Pied Piper
church hierarchy, nor have I met the Pope.
Pax
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52F8E372A703D871.0CACBBF4...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
Pied Piper
Be ready always with an answer for the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15)
Church Unity
Is it against Christ's will for there to be division in His Church? "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing; and that there be no dissension among you, but that you be perfectly united in one mind and in one judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10.)
How can we heal the division in Christ's Church? By emphasizing what we have in common, learning why we have different beliefs, and by having love for one another. "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."(Jn. 13:35.)
Can we be certain we are saved, or must we hope? Jesus said to the Apostles as He commissioned them "You will be hated by all because of My name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved." (Mt. 10:22). Jesus said to His disciples about the end "...the one who perseveres to the end will be saved." (Mt. 24:13. See also 1 Cor. 9:26-27, 10:12, Phil. 3:10-16.)
Does God want works to accompany faith? "What good is it my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have good works, is dead..." (Jam. 2:14-26). Jesus said " not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name? Did we not drive out demons in Your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in Your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers.' " (Mt.7:21-23) Jesus said to His disciples "For the Son of Man will come with angels in His father's glory, and he will repay everyone in accordance with his conduct." (Mt. 16:27). Jesus answered the rich young man, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mt. 19:16-19) (Mt. 25:31-46, Dan. 4:24, Rev.14:13, 20:13).
Confession: "He who conceals his sins prospers not, but he who confesses them and forsakes them obtains mercy." (Prv. 28:13) Jesus said to the Apostles after His resurrection "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (Jn.20:23).
Eucharist: "While the disciples were eating, Jesus took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said 'Take and eat; this is My Body.' Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, 'Drink from it all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which will be shed for you in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins'" (Mt.26:26-28, Jn.6).
Confirmation: Now when the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8, 14-17)
Marriage: Jesus said to the Pharisees, "God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become as one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no man must separate..." (Mk. 10:2-12).
Holy Orders: "Melchizedek, king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abraham with these words..." (Gen. 14:18) "In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified Himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to Him: 'You are My Son; this day I have begotten you' just as He says in another place 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.'" (Heb. 5:5-10, Lk. 22:19, Acts 14:22).
Anointing of Sick: "Is any among you sick? He should summon the priests of the Church and they should pray over him and anoint with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins they will be forgiven." (Jam. 5:14-15).
Why call Priests Father? St Paul wrote "I am writing this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel." (1 Cor. 4:14-15). St Paul also wrote "You recall brothers our toil and drudgery. Working night and day in order to not burden any of you we proclaimed to you the Gospel of God. You are witness and so is God, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers. As you know we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into His kingdom of glory." (1 Thes. 2:9-12).
Fornication (pre-marital sex): Jesus said to His "For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, and blasphemy." (Mt. 15:19) "Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph. 5:5,6).
Contraception (Artificial birth control): "God blessed male and female, saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it...'"(Gen. 1:28) Children too are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full." (Ps. 127:3-5) Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." Onan however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too." (Gen. 38:8-10).
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:215E9AD3C5312D9D.07B47A58...@lp.airnews.net...
timo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Are you still here?
Someone told me you found the Truth.
I guess they lied.
BTW, Jesus IS the authority, as proven by the Scripture you quoted.
--
Pied Piper
Pax
Catholic Bible Answers
Church Unity
Bible Only Theory
Tradition
The Pope
Mary
Salvation
Seven Sacraments
Morality
news:E5228253CAD48600.BCB114AD...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> Pied Piper wrote:
>
> > No CB and Ithug Catholicism agrees with the Bible.
>
> No it doesn't.
> Next????!!!!
>
>
R. Van Natta
>
> If Catholicism agrees with the Bible, how is it then that they have
changed
> the ten commandments to their own beliefs? Take for example the 2nd
> sorts of images of Christ etc and worship them.
>
>
> the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit make up the trinity. A
> trinity does not have four people in it either.
>
> saying hail mary a few times forgives them of their sins. The Bible
states
> that only God can give forgiveness. The priest isn't God is he? I don't
> see anywhere in the Bible that says go to your priest and say hail mary a
> few times and I will forgive you of your sins.
>
The
> cardinals etc.., priests, catholics, satan. The Bible says that the
church
> is Christ's bride. The church is His, and therefore there should be no
> heirarchy. The Pope is worshipped etc... Why? God should be worshipped
> according to the Bible, yet they worship the Pope.
>
> catholic.
>
> much?
>
> Stephen
Stephen:
You seem like a pretty nice person, at least not as hateful as some others
on this board. However, I must take exception to what you have said and
like those others, you are very mis-informed. Please check out amazon.com
and order the Catholic Catechism. It is a book which has all of the
teachings of the Catholic Church. It is produced by the church and has an
opening introduction from the Pope. It is the real "McCoy", not a comic
book or someones interpretation of what they think that the Catholic Church
teaches or believes. It will only cost you about $4.
God Bless,
Rick
R. Van Natta
> I completely agree. I am not a catholic, some things in the roman
catholic
> religion are just plain wrong. But I definitely don't hate the people,
any
> of them.
>
about them. You can't understand or win against your enimies if you don't
understand where they are coming from or understand our "weaknesses."
Again, I refer you to the bible and for an understanding of our beliefs, the
catechism (teaching book) of the Catholic Church.
Rick
R. Van Natta
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, SumBuny4Me wrote:
> > just my $0.02
>
> I agree.
> It's also important to point out that the Catholic Church has much more in
> common with first- and second- wave Reformation Churches (what others call
> "Mainline" Protestant or "Sacramental" Protestant Churches, that is, those
> that have more than one sacrament, using a Catholic understanding of the
> word), than any of us do with the third- fourth- or fifth- wave Protestant
> Churches (the third wave was Zwingli's Congreationalists and all the
> tent-revaival snake-oil salesmen that came from then, the fourth wave was
> the Televangelists, which really started with Darby's dispensationalism
> but continued on into Health&Wealth gospel preachers, and the fifth wave
> started with the Mormons, but includes Jehovah's Witnesses and a whole
> slew of Seventh Day Adventist inspired cults that sometimes make the news,
> at least when they commit suicide, or entice the federal government to
> kill them).
>
> I think the real problem was Zwingli's rejection of the sacraments that
> makes me say: These people are rejecting Christ. They're no better than
> atheists.
> Ted
But Ted, your forgot about the part that if you just don't agree with
someone elses intepretation, direction, or scriptures, the answer is to just
change them to fit you and preach it real loud. Especially effective to
convert people to you new religion (excuse me, I meant to say original
religion) is to go on a Catholic News Group and spray your words. Real
effective. Especially since you know how us old stupid, non-bible reading,
catholics are. Amazing how the sentance quoters can't seem to respond to us
poor old Catholic bible readers, huh?
Rick
ihug
Love and blesings
Stephen
> Catholics use all sorts of images of Christ etc and worship them.
> End Quote
>
> That typical statement from Catholic hate literature, only proves
> you don't understand the Catholic faith you have been taught (by men) to
> hate. The simple fact is Catholics do not worship images.
>
> As for images (Icons) are you not now reading this message on a
> computer and using images to control that computer?
>
> Begin Quote
> .
>
> Now the Catholic church has stated that it is trying to change the
> trinity to include Mary.
> End Quote
>
> You better ask yourself where that one came from and realized that
> source is on a par with the little green men theories. Again it only
> shows how many lies your teachers are telling you about the Catholic
> Church.
>
> Begin Quote
> Catholics believe that by going to the priest and having confession and
> saying hail mary a few times forgives them of their sins. The Bible
> states that only God can give forgiveness. The priest isn't God is he?
> I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says go to your priest and say
> hail mary a few times and I will forgive you of your sins.
> End Quote
>
> Again you need to question your teachers and ask them why they never
> taught you:
>
> Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you
> shall retain, they are retained' (John, xx, 21-23)
>
> To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
> heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
> also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
> loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xvi, 19). Later He says to all the
> Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth,
> shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon
> earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xviii, 18).
>
> Begin Quote
> The catholics have a heirachy in the church, God, Jesus, Mary, The
> Pope, The cardinals etc.., priests, catholics, satan. The Bible says
> that the church is Christ's bride. The church is His, and therefore
> there should be no heirarchy. The Pope is worshipped etc... Why? God
> should be worshipped according to the Bible, yet they worship the Pope.
> End Quote
>
> Sorry, this is just so far out that I can't make enough sense of it
> to answer.
>
> Begin Quote
> This is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a
> romam catholic.
> End Quote
>
> It would seem you have only proven that either you did not
> understand what your aunty said, or that not every Roman Catholic
> understands their religion.
>
> Begin Quote
> How then do catholics agree with the Bible when they have changed it so
> much?
ihug
All I am reporting is what I have seen in a few families of catholics, and
what I know of the catholic faith in general.
I put it to you that all though you may not worship idols, some members of
the catholic faith do.
I do not see a reason for all the abuse and division in the body of christ.
We should not be fighting among ourselves, but rather against the enemy -
Satan.
I know that some of the beliefs of catholics are in error, and also that
some beliefs of Protestants is in error.
The problem is that many catholics believe they are going to heaven for
their works. They believe that by holding a more respected position in the
church, they are better than others. This is also in some cases an issue in
other churches but it seems to be a common one in the catholic church.
The truth is that we all have different gifts. One person may be the pope,
and another an accomplished toilet cleaner. But God sees them as saved by
grace, not by their position in the church.
I have heard that a group exists within the catholic church that would like
to have Mary as part of the trinity. She is indeed worthy of respect, but
no more than you or I.
I have said from the start that the problem is not with all catholics, but
rather with some (I won't even say most) of them.
The truth is that many are saved by grace, but many (in some chuches most)
believe they will be saved by works, which is clearly not true.
As for the issue of Holy Spirit inspiration, it does indeed occur to this
day, but never in conflict with God's nature, or the bible. Any spirit
inspiration in conflict with this is either of yourself, or of the evil one.
Love and blessings
Stephen
ihug
discussion, just in proving yourself right at any cost.
I have no interest in wasting time talking to any one with such an attitude.
But I will say this. Works are indeed biblical, but never in obtaining
salvation. Works play no part whatsoever in salvation. By grace are we
saved, through grace, and not that of ourselves, it is a gift of God.
Love and blessings
Stephen
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000802...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, ihug wrote:
>
> > Brothers, I am by no means perfect. Nor is any one.
>
> Good that you know this.
>
> > All I am reporting is what I have seen in a few families of catholics,
and
> > what I know of the catholic faith in general.
>
> I would point out that ALL members of the Catholic faith are sinners.
>
> > I put it to you that all though you may not worship idols, some members
of
> > the catholic faith do.
>
> Some do. Many (like Fr. Gruner of Fatima Crusader fame) have been kicked
> out of the Church for it.
>
> > I do not see a reason for all the abuse and division in the body of
christ.
> > We should not be fighting among ourselves, but rather against the
enemy -
> > Satan.
>
> And those who worship idols, or who claim that all Catholics are the same,
> are from the enemy.
>
> > I know that some of the beliefs of catholics are in error, and also that
> > some beliefs of Protestants is in error.
>
> Especially some of the beliefs about Catholics.
>
> > The problem is that many catholics believe they are going to heaven for
> > their works.
>
> Which is of course, Biblical. I would refer you to Matthew Chaper 25, and
> James 2:1-17.
>
> > They believe that by holding a more respected position in the
> > church, they are better than others.
>
> Part of the problem here is a lack of understanding of HOW one becomes
> respected in the Catholic Church: By giving up all else to follow Christ,
> like the Pope and Mother Thresea did.
>
> > This is also in some cases an issue in
> > other churches but it seems to be a common one in the catholic church.
>
> In other churches, the different classes just start new churches. Ever
> wonder why Negro Baptist Churches in the South have an average member
> income of a mere $22,000, but Anglican Churches throughout the United
> States have an average member income of $50,000?
> It's classism, pure and simple.
>
> > The truth is that we all have different gifts. One person may be the
pope,
> > and another an accomplished toilet cleaner. But God sees them as saved
by
> > grace, not by their position in the church.
>
> Absolutely. And grace comes to those who are the most HUMBLE.
>
> The Pope, by the way, has the offical title "Servant of the Servants of
> God". He's not at the top of the hierarchy, he's at the bottom.
>
> > I have heard that a group exists within the catholic church that would
like
> > to have Mary as part of the trinity.
>
> That group has been excommunicated for their heresy.
>
> > She is indeed worthy of respect, but
> > no more than you or I.
>
> Oh? Did you carry God in your womb?
> Did you say "yes" to God, and in doing so, ruin your social standing and
> any hope of EVER being respected?
>
> That's what Mary did.
>
> > I have said from the start that the problem is not with all catholics,
but
> > rather with some (I won't even say most) of them.
>
> So far, all you've proven is that the problem is with a few ex-Catholics
> who have been excommunicated and very vocal about thier lack of faith.
>
> > The truth is that many are saved by grace, but many (in some chuches
most)
> > believe they will be saved by works, which is clearly not true.
>
> Alone, it's clearly not true.
>
> Saved by grace, through faith, which PRODUCES works, that's Biblical, and
> that's Catholic. Those who reject works are entirely unbiblical.
>
> > As for the issue of Holy Spirit inspiration, it does indeed occur to
this
> > day, but never in conflict with God's nature, or the bible.
>
> Oh? I see MANY claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit who are DIRECTLY
> in conflict with the Bible.
>
> > Any spirit
> > inspiration in conflict with this is either of yourself, or of the evil
one.
>
timo...@yahoo.com
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> timo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Interesting how you don't have one Scripture with the word "authority" in
it.
Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and
lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Matt 16:19 I [Jesus] will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a
tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch
over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this
joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
3 John 9 I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes
to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. 10 So if I come, I
will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words.
Titus 15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no
one disregard you.
> You had to go to "traditions of men" for that.
Actually, yours is the religion is based upon the traditions of men who
appointed themselves to "preach the Gospel" and have every man follow his
own interpretation of scripture.
> You are again proven a liar.
Until you can demonstrate from the Bible how you know which books belong in
the Bible, then you are the liar. You claim everything you believe is "in
the Bible." The Bible is based upon the Canon of Scripture. Without a Canon
of Scripture there would be no Bible. There is no Canon of Scripture
anywhere in the Bible. If you can't show us from the Bible how you know what
books constitute Scripture, then you are not only a liar, but you are
ignorant as well.
Why don't you explain to us why St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans is not
included in the Canon of the New Testament but his short Letter to Philemon
is included?
The Bible clearly and unequivocally says that Barnabas was set apart by the
Holy Spirit to preach the Word of God:
Acts 12:7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence,
who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit
said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have
called them."
Given that Barnabas wrote a general Epistle to all believers around 74 A.D.
. . .
Barnabas 21:13 And if you have any remembrance of what is good, be mindful
of me, meditating on these things, in order that both my desire and
watchfulness may result in some good. I beseech you, entreating this as a
favour. While yet you are in this fair vessel, 14 do not fail in any one of
those things, 15 but unceasingly seek after them, and fulfil every
commandment; for these things are worthy. 16 Wherefore I have been the more
earnest to write to you, as my ability served, 17 that I might cheer you.
Farewell, ye children of love and peace. The Lord of glory and of all grace
be with your spirit. Amen.
. . . why is this Epistle of Barnabas not part of the New Testament?
OCM87
>and play elsewhere.
>
>
>Pax
>
Well actually son, you need to leave. I believe there is a newsgroup dealing
with the catholic church. This newsgroup was originally designed for actual
discussion of the Bible............not for a bunch of catholics to come in here
and run off their mouth.
One thing that I think is ironic is that many catholics in this group are
constantly spouting off about how great in number they are. They will give
some figure as to 9,10, or 11 million in the U.S. and upwards of 50 million or
more world wide. They like the idea of "safety in numbers". Matthew 7:13
"...for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat."
Oh well.......the more the merrier.
OCM87
Do you have this tattooed on your backside, or does catholic brain-washing
actually work that well?
OCM87
>Either contribute or shut the fuck up.
>
Well that was very christian-like. Tell me, do you kiss the pope's backside, I
mean ring with that mouth?
If that kind of language is what is being taught as acceptible by the catholic
church and other denominations.........then no wonder CB and I are in the
minority! Only a man-made doctrine would tolerate such.
ihug
> Everyone knows he just likes to hear himself rant and rave.
> He's kinda like the popes 2nd lieutenant: He keeps spouting off but no one
pays
> any attention to
> him.
> God bless you,
> CB
Thank you, yes it does seem he is very closed minded. His 'responses' never
actually respond to what I say, but rather tries to prove his catholic faith
using irrelevent, twisted scripture. It is unfortunate that scripture can
be abused and used out of context to convince fools of just about anything.
That is after all what satan tried to do to Jesus.
But, PP, we are not all fools.
PR 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools* despise wisdom and discipline.
Love and blessings
Stephen
ihug
Love and Blessings
Stephen
"OCM87" <oc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000803004442...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
ihug
quite happy to be PROVED wrong.
Love and blessings
Stephen
"R. Van Natta" <revan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8maudq$opo$1...@pegasus.tiscalinet.it...
>
> "ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8m84pl$9po$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > If Catholicism agrees with the Bible, how is it then that they have
> changed
> > the ten commandments to their own beliefs? Take for example the 2nd
> > commandment. Do not make any graven image unto thee. Catholics use all
> > sorts of images of Christ etc and worship them.
> >
> > The tenth commandment has also been split into two by catholics.
> >
> > Now the Catholic church has stated that it is trying to change the
trinity
> > to include Mary. Mary is not part of the trinity, the Bible says that
God
> > the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit make up the trinity. A
> > trinity does not have four people in it either.
> >
> > Catholics believe that by going to the priest and having confession and
> > saying hail mary a few times forgives them of their sins. The Bible
> states
> > that only God can give forgiveness. The priest isn't God is he? I
don't
> > see anywhere in the Bible that says go to your priest and say hail mary
a
> > few times and I will forgive you of your sins.
> >
> > The catholics have a heirachy in the church, God, Jesus, Mary, The Pope,
> The
> > cardinals etc.., priests, catholics, satan. The Bible says that the
> church
> > is Christ's bride. The church is His, and therefore there should be no
> > heirarchy. The Pope is worshipped etc... Why? God should be
worshipped
> > according to the Bible, yet they worship the Pope.
> >
> > This is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a romam
> > catholic.
> >
> > How then do catholics agree with the Bible when they have changed it so
> > much?
> >
Joseph Meehan
If the bible says "have no other gods before Me" and a priest bows down
and worships a statue
End Quote
The point is priest don't bow and worship statues. As usual you are
taking the word of a Catholic hate group about something you don't
understand and those hate groups could care less about the truth.
Joseph Meehan
CB you are clueless.
End Quote
Yea, but he can quote page after page of quotes to go along with his
mindless responses. [;-)
Joseph Meehan
Who are you to judge me? you keep telling me by what means i get my
information, you keep telling me that i don't know anything. why can't
you rebuke me without throwing in an insult?
Please re-read what said, I attacked the accuracy of your sources,
not you. Maybe you mis understood. Please be specific about where you
think I insulted you and not your bad information. I did not intend to
insult you.
They should, I should know more than I do, but you should not expect
every Catholic to fully understand their faith and you should expect
some to have a poor understanding, even if they have a strong faith.
Begin Quote
I don't worship the icons on my computer so what relevance does that
have? it is not a valid point.
End Quote
None at all, which is the point, Catholics don't worship images
either. They worship God alone.
Begin Quote
So you are saying that the catnolic church is a liar then? because i
was not taught lies by men about this. ...
End Quote
No I am saying this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. You
can take my word for it or look it up. I was suggesting you should find
a better source for information about the Catholic Church and for
starters check on what ever source this lie came from and then question
any other information about the Church that came from the same source.
Begin Quote
God says that only He can give forgiveness, and we give others
forgiveness through Him.
End Quote
Exactly, how did anything I say conflict with that?
Begin Quote
How do you even know what version I use? you make a lot of assumptions
don't you.
End Quote
I don't know what version you are using, all I know is you said it
is different from the Catholic Bible. I only addressed the fact that
there are differences. I did make one slight assumption and that was
that you were using a translated version and you were not reading the
Bible in their most original language. I would guess I was right about
that one.
Begin Quote
you assume too much, like you keep telling me about having all these
teachers who make up lies etc... for goodness sake, you are telling me
i am getting little green men theories, look at your own statements. i
get my information from the Bible, and my teachers don't lie to me.
End Quote
No you don't get all your information from the Bible, For example
much of the information I was talking about was in your own words "This
is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a romam
catholic." Unless your wife's aunty wrote the Bible it is not
information from the Bible.
It would seem you need to loose the chip on your shoulder.
OCM87
>
>Love and Blessings
>Stephen
Come on in.
Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost."
OCM87
>and order the Catholic Catechism. It is a book which has all of the
>teachings of the Catholic Church. It is produced by the church and has an
>opening introduction from the Pope. It is the real "McCoy", not a comic
>book or someones interpretation
Why is there a man-made book that tells what the catholic church teaches? Why
wouldn't he be able to find what you teach in the New Testament? This is not a
hateful question.........it's just a question.
timo...@yahoo.com
[ . . .]
> Wrong again.
> The basis of the reformation is a "return to Truth".
> And we all know how much the rcc hates truth.
The purpose for the reformation was the rejection of authority.
If you had the truth, then you would be able to tell us how you know which
books constitute the Canon of Scripture. Whay haven't you done so?
timo...@yahoo.com
> I agree. But (and I'm not saying you are) many seem to judge catholics as
> if it is there fault.
>
> Catholics are in the unfortunate position of having been taught these
> things, to a large extent, many of them are not even aware that these
things
> are going on.
>
> Any catholics reading this, READ YOUR BIBLE. The stuff the catholic
church
> tries to teach that is wrong, is wrong because it conflicts with the
bible.
> The church hopes you will not read your bible.
[ . . .]
We do read our Bibles. The Bible is a Catholic book. It's ironic that you
claim that Catholic teaching "conflicts with the bible" when the simple fact
is that the entirety of your religion not only conflicts with the bible, but
it proves itslef to be completely false:
1. Protestants assert "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired
Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are
meant by the "inspired Scriptures" since many different sects and religions
have many different books which they call "inspired Scriptures."
2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures,"
means in fact those 66 books which are bound and published in Protestant
Bibles. (henceforth referred to as "the 66 books")
3. The statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B:
"All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books."
4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any
statements telling us which books make up the entire body of inspired
Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their
own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses
together. This would be the case:
(a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel
is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture,"
etc., for all of the 66 books; and
(b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other
than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even
pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the
Bible itself.
5. It follows that Proposition B - the very foundation of all Protestant
Christianity - is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from
Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in
Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all
revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, it must be
now affirmed in Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66
books. "
6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition
B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a
self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66
books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there."
7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed
truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be
deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone
can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is
ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from
Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra- Scriptural premise
from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second
possibility involves no self- contradiction, but it is factually
preposterous, and is doubtful whether any Protestant has seriously tried to
defend it - least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly
emphasize the corruption of man's natural intellectual powers as a result of
the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and
responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality
of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that
this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence.
(Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an
authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded
certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what
is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those
who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely
Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own
fallibility - whether individually or collectively - in matters of religious
doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as
they deny the Pope's.)
8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be
deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at
all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought, and which
Protestants accept, is simply false.
How do you know which books belong in the Bible?
--
http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/
iceberg3k
> No you don't get all your information from the Bible, For
example
>much of the information I was talking about was in your own
words "This
>is just some of the information from my wife's aunty who is a
romam
>catholic." Unless your wife's aunty wrote the Bible it is not
>information from the Bible.
In other words, this is a case of fallacious appeal to false
authority - it is possible for his wife's aunty to be wrong about
the doctrine of the Church.
> It would seem you need to loose the chip on your shoulder.
I hate to be a stickler about spelling, but you misspelled
"lose."
-- Mark
-ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
-"Purpose of karate: Make perfect person." - Shihan Fumio Demura
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Orthodox
> The problem is that many catholics believe they are going to heaven
for
> their works.
Saint James (you know the one - of Bible fame?) apparently operated
under that same delusion:
St. James 2:14 "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has
faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"
(I guess we just found ANOTHER book of the Bible that the fundies have
decided to trashcan, huh?)
Orthodox
Orthodox
> I have no interest in wasting time talking to any one with such an
attitude.
>
> But I will say this. Works are indeed biblical, but never in
obtaining
> salvation. Works play no part whatsoever in salvation.
You say. Saint James says otherwise:
St. James 2:14 "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has
faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"
Why don't you go write your own Bible, since apparently you don't LIKE
the one the rest of us are using, eh ihug?
Orthodox
Pied Piper
precious Bibles that says it is the only source of truth. The will list a
plethora of scriptures, none of which actually answer that question. They
go hither and yon pasting scriptures together, in a vain attempt at
justifying there religious beliefs based on men.
Pax
Sola Scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral
tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
<timo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RWei5.2186$SB4.1...@news.flash.net...
>
> "ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Pied Piper
MARIO DERKSEN
Protestants have a hard time with 2 Thessalonians 2:15. It contradicts their
doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Latin for "the Bible alone is our rule of
faith."
In the RSV, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads [emphasis added]
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were
taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
This definitely favors the Catholic position, which holds that our rule of
faith is the truth of Jesus Christ, and this truth has been passed on to the
Apostles, and then to their successors, and their successors, etc. The
current successors are the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church (which can
be historically proven), so our rule of faith is, today, the teaching
Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which keeps bringing to us the truth of
Christ passed on to all the bishops.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we are told to follow the teachings of the Apostles,
and not only what they wrote, which is what Protestants claim, but also what
they transmitted orally.
Now, of course, several efforts have been made by Protestants to explain
this passage away.
James White, director of the Reformed Baptist ministry "Alpha and Omega,"
has tried it this way: he says that these "traditions" we are to hold fast
to are not any extra-biblical teachings, but simply "the Gospel." Well, it
is indeed the Gospel, but the full Gospel, because we know that not all of
the Gospel is written down in Scripture (see John 21:25). So that's how far
James White's claim has gone.
Another Protestant who tried to look over 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is James
McCarthy, in his book The Gospel According to Rome. He writes, "[T]he
traditions of which Paul was speaking refer to aspects of the Lord's second
coming" [McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, p. 343]. Now, James
McCarthy leaves his claim totally unsupported; there are not even any
scriptural citations that back his point up. And why not? Because his claim
is not really true. He is right in saying that the epistle contains
prophecies about the Lord's Second Coming, but that is not the immediate
context. Right one verse before verse 15, in 2 Thessalonians 2:14, we read
[emphasis added]:
To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory
of our Lord Jesus Christ...
The context right here is the GOSPEL, so this is what St. Paul is talking
about when he says, "So then, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were
taught, either by word of mouth or by our epistle." He tells this to the
Thessalonians because of Christ's Second Coming, that they may not be led
astray (cf. verse 3), but hold fast to the True Gospel, which is to be found
in Paul's teachings, whether transmitted orally or in written form.
Frank Eberhardt left the Catholic faith when he was studying to become a
priest in the seminary. One may hope and
pray that he will some day return to the fullness of the Faith of our
fathers. But in his present frame of mind, Mr. Eberhardt argues that 2
Thessalonians 2:15 does not prove the Catholic case for Tradition because it
nowhere says that not all of these "oral teachings" are written down. He is
of the opinion that all this oral tradition is found in the pages of
Scripture.
While this is the best argument for the Protestant position I've so far
heard, it won't stand either.
First of all, Scripture nowhere claims that it contains all teachings of the
Apostles. Secondly, it doesn't make too much sense for St. Paul to tell the
Thessalonians to hold fast to his teachings in EITHER form if he was of the
opinion that everything that was preached orally was also written down. No,
the epistles of Paul are all letters to a specific group of people and dealt
with specific topics that needed to be addressed. It's totally far-fetched
and illogical to claim that his 13 epistles are to be a comprehensive source
of all of the Apostles' teachings. It doesn't make sense anyway because of
the fact that not many people could read back then, and the Canon of the
Scriptures was not identified until the end of the fourth century AD.
Another point to be made is the fact that Mr. Eberhardt is simply asserting
that St. Paul placed all of his teachings in writing. He offers only a
claim, without giving proof. Recall that Jesus never commanded His disciples
to write anything, and that St. John said that not all of Jesus' words were
recorded. These undisputed Biblical facts militate against Eberhardt's
claims.
Let's also look at St. Paul's command to Timothy [emphasis added]:
2 Timothy 1:13
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and
love that are in Christ Jesus.
Note the phrase "heard" -- St. Paul does NOT say, "Take as your norm what I
have written to you" or anything like that. Indeed, in 2 John 12, we read
[emphasis added]:
Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink,
but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our
joy may be complete.
Protestants will simply have to accept that their doctrine of Sola Scriptura
is unbiblical.
One ought to compare Sola Scriptura to a state that issues a constitution.
Would the state give each citizen a copy of the Constitution so each can
interpret it individually and according to their own needs, saying, "May the
Spirit of Washington go with you?" NO! Any state needs a legislative branch
in the government to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. After all,
it's the government's book. We would have chaos and anarchy if each person
in the US could interpret the Constitution by themselves. We would have no
rules. The same applies to Sola Scriptura. Where there is the Bible ONLY,
there are lots of different opinions on what it means. See, we currently
have nearly 30,000 denominations, all claiming to go by the Bible alone.
These are the fruits of private interpretation. We have spiritual anarchy in
Protestantism, because they have rejected the authority, the Church, to
explain the Bible to them.
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, and the tradition consists
mainly of the interpretation of that book. The Church says to us, "You have
read my book. Now let me explain it to you."
Another good analogy would be this:
Let's say there is a math class, and the teacher gives his students a big
textbook. When the students go through the book, they may not understand
this or that concept. What do they do? Do they flip through the whole book
to find their answer? Well, they might check what else the book says about
the topic, but if that doesn't help, what do they do? OK, they might ask
some of their classmates that might understand it better. And classmate X
will say, "On page 31, it says you need to do it this way," while classmate
Y might say, "No, X is wrong, this doesn't refer to that," and in the end
they'll be totally confused about what is actually right. They are in a dead
end. What do they do? They ask the TEACHER!
And that's also true for Christians, the Bible, and the Church. If there's
something we don't understand in the Scriptures, ultimately, we will ask our
Teacher, the Magisterium of the Church, consisting of the Bishops and the
Pope, who are infallible collectively when officially defining a doctrine
(cf. Matthew 16:18, 18:15-18, 28:19-20, 1 Timothy 3:15).
Now, some might say, "The true teacher is the Holy Spirit." Correct. And the
Church is guided by Him. "My sheep hear my voice" - indeed, but this
obviously can't hold true for every individual Christian, since the
existence of some 30,000
denominations proves that Christian unity doesn't flow from the Sola
Scriptura theory in practice. Since God knew that there would be disunity
among believers, we ought to see if Jesus has made provisions for the unity
and integrity of the true faith. And He did! Christ established a teaching
Church (cf. Matthew 28:20) with the guarantee that it would not teach
falsehood (Matthew 16:18, 18:18, John 17:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.).
Where there is no Bible, the Church is not without the Gospel.
The Protestant claim of Sola Scriptura is false.
"Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wAai5.2785$IX6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Begin Quote
> CB you are clueless.
> End Quote
>
> Yea, but he can quote page after page of quotes to go along with his
> mindless responses. [;-)
>
Pied Piper
news:Byai5.2784$IX6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
Pied Piper
Reformationists. Poor CB is dillusional, and has been a long time. If you
have a question ask it. I will be happy to answer it.
Pax
MARIO DERKSEN
"ihug" <newsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mb3m7$su1$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
Pied Piper
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S VIEW OF NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS
by Karl Adam
Abridged version, by Dave Armstrong, of "The Church Necessary for Salvation," chapter 10, pp.169-186 of The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924, translated by Dom Justin McCann).
This book (in the editor's opinion, anyway) is one of the very best expositions of Catholicism ever written: very eloquent, biblical, imaginative, appealing, and orthodox. In it is found the following excellent treatment of the complex and multi-faceted question of how non-Catholic Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church, and how the Catholic Church believes itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ founded, while simultaneously acknowledging other Christians as members of the true, mystical Body of Christ as well. Furthermore, contrary to much misguided mythology, the Catholic Church does not presume to "damn" anyone by virtue of its own authority (neither "anathema" nor "excommunication" - both explicit biblical concepts - entail automatic damnation) - this being God's role alone.
This "ecumenical" teaching concerning non-Catholic Christians was merely reiterated and emphasized at Vatican II (1962-1965), and is nothing new, as many seem to think. Karl Adam wrote this book in 1924, forty years before that Council, and there is a long Tradition stretching all the way back to the Apostles, to which Adam makes reference within the chapter. The Catholic Church assuredly does - as most people are fully aware - condemn heresy, as all Christian groups must, but not in such a way as to exclude all who hold heretical beliefs from the Body of Christ or, necessarily, from ultimate salvation, as Adam will lucidly and carefully explain.
In contrast, unfortunately many Protestant denominations summarily exclude Catholicism from Christianity altogether, on - in my opinion - various inadequate and self-defeating grounds. I humbly submit, then, that if one is looking for "intolerance" and an overly "dogmatic" attitude towards Christians of differing persuasions, one must search somewhere other than the Catholic Church, despite the fact that it is - for some reason - burdened by the constant accusation of "intolerance."
[p.169]
"And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matthew 18:17).
The Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, as the realisation in the world of the Kingdom of God, is the Church of Humanity........the exclusive institution wherein all men shall attain salvation.....
The Church would belie her own deepest essence and her most outstanding quality, namely her inexhaustible fulness and that which guarantees and supports this fulness, her vocation to be the Body of Christ, if she were ever to recognise some collateral and antagonistic Christian church as her sister and as possessing equal rights with herself. She can recognise the historical importance of such churches, She can even designate them as Christian communions, yes, even as Christian churches, but never as the Church of Christ. One [p.170] God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church. There can never be a second Christ, and in the same way there cannot be a second Body of Christ.......
The Catholic Church can and will appraise generously, and will countenance, all the communities of non-Catholic Christendom.......But she cannot recognise other Christian communions as churches of like order and rights with herself. To do so would be infidelity to her own nature, and would be the worst disloyalty to herself. In her own eyes the Catholic Church is nothing at all if she be not the Church, the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God. This exclusiveness is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the bringer of the new life, to be the way, the truth and the life........
There is "no other name under heaven given to men, whereby they must be saved" (Acts 4:12). But we can grasp Christ only through His Church. It is true that He might, had He so willed, have imparted Himself and His grace to all men directly, in personal experience. But the question is not what might have been, but what Christ in fact willed to do. And in fact He willed to give Himself to men through men, that is by the way of a community life and not by the way of isolation and in- [p.171] dividualism......
It was not His will to sanctify a countless multitude of solitary souls, but a corporate kingdom of saints, a Kingdom of God......
From the very beginning, as St. Matthew testifies (Matthew 18:17) the necessity for salvation of belonging to the one fellowship was established on the basis of an express saying of our Lord's:.....St. Cyprian [d.258] afterwards expressed this conviction of primitive Christianity......: "To have the one God for your father, you must have the Church for your mother" (Ep. 74,7). "No man can be saved except in the Church" (Ep. 4,4). "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73,21).
Thus was formulated that sentence which puts the Church's claim to be the only source of salvation in the most concise form: "Outside the Church no salvation" [p.172] (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). the Fourth Lateran Council (A.D. 1215) adopted this formula verbatim........
[p.174] ......But, we may ask, does that mean that all heretics and non-Catholics are destined to hell?.......
To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at any persons as persons, but at non-Catholic churches and communions, in so far as they are non-Catholic communions. Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possesses and imparts the grace of Christ in its fulness........So that the spiritual unfruitfulness which is predicated in the doctrine is not to be affirmed of the individual non-Catholic, but primarily of non-Catholic communions as such.........
[p.175].....[But] non-Catholic communions are not merely non-Catholic and anti-Catholic. When they set themselves up against the original Church of Christ, they took over and maintained a considerable amount of the Catholic inheritance, and also certain Catholic means of grace, in particular the sacrament of Baptism. They are therefore, if we regard them as a whole, not mere antithesis and negation, but also to a large extent thesis and affirmation of the ancient treasure of truth and grace that has come down to us from Christ and the apostles........And in so far as they are genuinely Catholic in their faith and worship, it can and will and must happen that there should be, even outside the visible Church, a real growth and progress in union with Christ. So is the promise of Jesus fulfilled: "And other sheep I have that are not of this fold" (John 10:16). Wherever the Gospel of Jesus is faithfully preached, and wherever baptism is conferred with faith in His Holy Name, there His grace can operate.......
The Church......upheld the validity of baptism in the Name of Jesus conferred by heretics. And it was Rome, Rome that is so violently attacked for her intolerance, and Pope Stephen, who even at the peril of an African schism would not allow heretical baptism to be impugned........
[p.176]....The Jansenists in the seventeenth century.....advocated the.....principle that "outside the Church there is no grace" (extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia). But again it was Rome and a pope that expressly rejected this proposition.......
[p.177].....Non-Catholic sacraments have the power to sanctify and save, not only objectively, but also subjectively. It is therefore conceivable also, from the Church's standpoint, that there is a true, devout and Christian life in those non-Catholic communions which believe in Jesus and baptize in His Name. We Catholics regard this Christian life, wherever it appears, with unfeigned respect and with thankful love......
And not merely a Christian life, but a complete and lofty Christian life, a life according to the "full age of Christ," a saintly life, is possible - so Catholics believe - even in definitely non-Catholic communions. It is true that it cannot develop with that luxuriance which is possible in the Church, where is the fulness of Jesus and His Body; and it will never be anti-Catholic in its quality. Yet it will be a genuine saintly life; since, wherever grace is, the noble fruits of grace can ripen.......it is Catholic teaching that the grace of Christ operates, not only in the Christian [p.178] communions, but also in the non-Christian world, in Jews and in Turks and in Japanese. Every Catholic catechism, when it explains the ordinary form of baptism, lays emphasis also on that extraordinary form which is called baptism of desire. By that is meant that perfect love, evoked and supported by the redeeming grace of Jesus, has power to sanctify the soul, and that that soul so decisively affirms the will of God that it would at once receive baptism, if it knew of that sacrament or could receive it. As God sends His rain and His sunshine upon all, so does He send His conquering grace into the hearts of all those who hold themselves ready for it, who do what in them lies, who perform what their conscience bids them.......Wherever conscience is astir, wherever men are alive to God and His Holy Will, there and at the same time the grace of Christ co-operates and lays in the soul the seeds of the new supernatural life.......
[p.179]......The Church rightly maintains and continually reiterates, in decisive and uncompromising fashion, her claim to be the sole true Body of Christ; but at the same time she holds a generous and large-minded view regarding the activity of Christ's grace. That activity has no bounds or limits, but is as infinite as the love of God.........
In the Catholic Church the saving power, which was revealed in Christ, flows into the world with original force, in untroubled purity, and in complete and exhaustive fulness......
[p.180] she doe not choose only this or that precious jewel, but she calls her own the whole inheritance of revealed truth contained in Scripture and Tradition.........because and in so far as the Body of Christ comprehends all those who are saved by Christ, those also who are visited by His grace in this immediate way belong to His Church. It is true that they do not belong to its outward and visible body, but they certainly belong to its invisible, supernatural soul, to its supernatural substance. For the grace of Christ never works in the individual in an isolated fashion, but always in the unity of His Body.......And thus it holds good, even for those brethren who are thus separated from the visible organism of the Church, that they too are saved in the Church, and not without her or in opposition to her.......
From the purely theological standpoint,.......the only possible conclusion regarding all heretics and schismatics, Jews and pagans, is that judgment of condemnation which the Council of Florence [1438-1445] pronounced upon them.........[p.181].......It is thus, from this purely theological standpoint, that we are to understand the sharp anathemas pronounced by the Church against all heretics and schismatics.........In these pronouncements the Church is not deciding the good or bad faith of the individual heretic. Still less is she sitting in judgment on his ultimate fate. The immediate purport of her condemnation is that these heretics represent and proclaim ideas antagonistic to the Church. When ideas are in conflict, when truth is fighting against error, and revelation against human ingenuity, then there can be no compromise and no indulgence.......Dogmatic intolerance is therefore a moral duty, a duty to the infinite truth and to truthfulness.
But so soon as it is a question, not of the conflict between idea and idea, but of living men, of our judgment on this or that non-Catholic, then the theologian becomes a psychologist, the dogmatist a pastor of souls. He draws attention to the fact that the living man is very rarely the embodiment of an idea, that the conceptual world and mentality of the individual are so multifarious and complicated, that he cannot be reduced to a single formula. In other words the heretic, the Jew and the pagan seldom exist [p.182] in a pure state........Therefore the Church expressly distinguishes between "formal" and "material" heretics. A "formal" heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a "material" heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine [354-430] forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally (Ep. 43,1,1). Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed Himself to be invited by Simon......
It is true that heretics were tried and burnt in the Middle Ages. But that was not done only in Catholic countries, for Calvin himself had Servetus burnt. And capital punishment was employed against the Anabaptists, especially in Thuringia and in the Electorate of Saxony [i.e., Luther's home regions]. According to the Protestant theologian, Walter Kohler, even Luther after 1530 regarded the penalty of death as a justifiable punishment for heresy. (Reformation und Ketzerprozess, 1900, p.36) The fact that the persecution of heresy was approved as a justifiable thing by non-Catholic bodies, and in certain cases carried out in practice, goes to show that such persecution did not spring from the nature of Catholicism, or in particular from its exclusive claims. The origin of such persecutions is to be sought rather in the Byzantine and medieval conception of the state, whereby every attack on the unity of the faith was regarded as an open crime against the unity and stability of the state, and [p.183] one which had to be punished according to the primitive methods of the time......
The religion of the medieval man embraced his whole life and outlook......So that every revolt against the Catholic faith seemed to him to be a moral crime, a sort of murder of the soul and of God, an offence more heinous than parricide. And his outlook was logical rather than psychological. He rejoiced in the perception of truth, but he had little appreciation of the living conditions of soul by which this perception is reached.......In dealing with the living man we have to take account not only of the logical force of truth, but also of the particular quality of the mental and spiritual endowment with which he reacts to the truth. Because they were not alive to the infinite variety of such spiritual endowment, they were all too ready, especially when truth was impugned, to conclude at once that it was a case of "evil will" (mala fides) and to pass sentence of condemnation, even though there were insuperable intellectual obstacles (ignorantia invincibilis) in the way of the perception of the truth. This pre-eminently logical attitude of mind is characteristic of the Middle Ages. That epoch had no feeling for life as a flowing thing with its own peculiar laws, no appreciation of history, whether within us or without us. And this attitude was not to be overcome and corrected, until the spirit of the time changed, until in the course of centuries and by a long evolution a new outlook took its place. Therefore the persecutions of heretics did not proceed from the nature of Catholicism, [p.184] but from the political and mental attitude of the Middle Ages.....
The theologian has by means of psychological and historical studies attained a wider understanding and become increasingly cautious in attributing an "evil will" to the heretic. He has become more alive to the thousand possibilities of invincible and therefore excusable error.......
Wherefore the Church's claim to be the Church of salvation by no means excludes a loving and sympathetic appreciation of the subjective conditions and circumstances under which heresy has arisen. Nor is her condemnation of a heresy always at the same time a condemnation of the individual heretic......
[p.185] But those also who know her not receive these gifts from her; yes, even those who misjudge and fight against her, provided they are in good faith, and are simply and loyally seeking the truth without self-righteous obstinacy......Though they be outwardly separated from the Church, they belong to its soul.
So that the non-Catholic of good will is already fundamentally united to the Church. It is only that he sees her not. Yet she is there, invisible and mysterious. And the more he grows in faith and in love, the more plainly will she become actually visible to him.....And it is because we believe that very many non-Catholics are already thus invisibly united with the Church, that we do not abandon [p.186] our conviction that this invisible union will one day be made visible in all its beauty. The more consciously and completely we all of us exhibit the spirit of Christ, the more certainly will that hour of grace approach, when the veils will fall from all eyes, when we shall put away all prejudice and misunderstanding and bitterness, when we shall once again as of old extend to one another the hand of brotherhood, when there shall be one God, one Christ, one shepherd and one flock.
Fringe4
> If the bible says "have no other gods before Me" and a priest bows down
and
> worships a
> Also, "catholic scholar" is an oxymoron.
> They are only trained in defending a lie.
Worship a statue? Do you worship your bible? or your crucifix around your
neck? Just because you may use them in prayer, does not mean that you
worship them. You need to actually find out what they believe, instead of
just taking what is spoon fed to you by the Catholic haters.
Yours, Fringe4
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, SumBuny4Me wrote:
> > > just my $0.02
> >
> > I agree.
> > It's also important to point out that the Catholic Church has much more in
> > common with first- and second- wave Reformation Churches (what others call
> > "Mainline" Protestant or "Sacramental" Protestant Churches, that is, those
> > that have more than one sacrament, using a Catholic understanding of the
> > word), than any of us do with the third- fourth- or fifth- wave Protestant
> > Churches (the third wave was Zwingli's Congreationalists and all the
> > tent-revaival snake-oil salesmen that came from then, the fourth wave was
> > the Televangelists, which really started with Darby's dispensationalism
> > but continued on into Health&Wealth gospel preachers, and the fifth wave
> > started with the Mormons, but includes Jehovah's Witnesses and a whole
> > slew of Seventh Day Adventist inspired cults that sometimes make the news,
> > at least when they commit suicide, or entice the federal government to
> > kill them).
> >
> > I think the real problem was Zwingli's rejection of the sacraments that
> > makes me say: These people are rejecting Christ. They're no better than
> > atheists.
> > Ted
>
> But Ted, your forgot about the part that if you just don't agree with
> someone elses intepretation, direction, or scriptures, the answer is to just
> change them to fit you and preach it real loud. Especially effective to
> convert people to you new religion (excuse me, I meant to say original
> religion) is to go on a Catholic News Group and spray your words. Real
> effective. Especially since you know how us old stupid, non-bible reading,
> catholics are. Amazing how the sentance quoters can't seem to respond to us
> poor old Catholic bible readers, huh?
They reject the Bible when they reject Christ, for the Bible is in Christ,
but Christ is not in the Bible.
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. Lydia, seller of Purple.
Theodore M. Seeber
Authority being entirely unBiblical?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, ihug wrote:
> > Please don't be offended by PP.
> > Everyone knows he just likes to hear himself rant and rave.
> > He's kinda like the popes 2nd lieutenant: He keeps spouting off but no one
> pays
> > any attention to
> > him.
> > God bless you,
> > CB
>
>
> Thank you, yes it does seem he is very closed minded. His 'responses' never
> actually respond to what I say, but rather tries to prove his catholic faith
> using irrelevent, twisted scripture. It is unfortunate that scripture can
> be abused and used out of context to convince fools of just about anything.
> That is after all what satan tried to do to Jesus.
>
> But, PP, we are not all fools.
>
> PR 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
> but fools* despise wisdom and discipline.
>
> Love and blessings
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
--
Theodore M. Seeber
> Ok, I'll check it out. Hey if you think I am wrong, please say so. I am
> quite happy to be PROVED wrong.
Ok, I just one to piggyback and point one thing out that you're wrong
about:
> > > The tenth commandment has also been split into two by catholics.
Just one thing that most people don't know:
The 10 commandments exist in two places in the Bible.
The version Protestants use is in Exodus, and puts the wife on the same
level as property (as was proper when Exodus was written).
The version Catholics use is in Deuteronomy, and represents a basic change
in Jewish thinking towards marriage in that it does honor to women by
making them different than property, instead making them, as another verse
in Deuteronomy says "A man shall leave his mother, and a woman leave her
home, and they shall travel together to where the two shall be as one".
Thus, it wasn't Catholics who split the 10 commandments, it was the
ancient Jews, who as they progressed in knowing God, realized that a
marriage must be an equal partnership.
It's a sad fact that Catholics and other Christians did not rediscover
this until just about 200 years ago, and we're still struggling with it.
So to those who use the 10 commandments (really 17 commandments anyway,
there's 17 verses in the section) from Exodus, let me ask: Is your wife
property?
How would she respond to your answer?
Ted
Pied Piper
by Gary Michuta
{edited by Dave Armstrong}
1) Protestants often cite passages such as Ps 138, Isa 40:8; 66:2,5; Matt
24:35; Mk 13:31; Lk 21:33, which magnify the dignity and the greatness of
God's Word. Amen! All must bow to and accept God's divine revelation. The
real question is whether God's revelation is committed "wholly unto writing"
(Westminster Confession 1:1) or both by word of mouth and in writing.
2) Isaiah 8:16-20 does at first seem to have a potential for a clear,
perspicuous command for Sola Scriptura. If only a New Testament passage was
as clear as this one the case for Sola Scriptura would be a "slam dunk".
Unfortunately, it isn't in the New Testament nor is it a "slam dunk" for
Sola Scriptura. I believe it has some very substantial problems. These fall
into five areas.
A) The word Law or torah does not necessarily specifically mean the
Pentateuch; it often means more generically "instruction, direction, custom,
manner." The case is even worse for the word "testimony." If there is
anything we can glean from the use of this word is that all of Scripture is
not in view here. The word translated "testimony" (te'uwday) is never used
in the Hebrew Scriptures to designate written Scripture. If Isaiah is not
coining a new usage here, he may be talking about his own works, which he is
passing on to his disciples for preservation.
B) "bind up the testimony, Seal the law among my disciples." Isaiah doesn't
say that his prophecies will be written down for his disciples' reference;
rather, it is to be sealed in his disciples! This is not a Catholic bias.
The evangelical Protestant scholar E.J. Young says, "Isaiah is to bind up
God's revelation in the sense that he is to close it spiritually in the
hearts of his disciples and to leave it there" (E.J. Young, Isaiah, vol 1.
313). This sounds pretty Catholic to me; revelation passed on orally to
successors for preservation. Still, we have the possibility of three
interpretations: Both the "Law" and the "Testimony" refer to Isaiah's
uninscripturated prophetic instruction - which would explicitly deny Sola
Scriptura; The "Law" refers to the written Scripture (up until this time)
and the "Testimony" refers to Isaiah oral instruction - which mirrors the
Catholic position or that both the "Law" and "Testimony" refer to written
Scripture - which would make this passage comport to Sola Scriptura but
would be the first time in the Hebrew Scriptures that "testimony" is used
such a manner.
C) Even if this passage refers to Isaiah's oral instruction and the books of
Moses, it would effectively narrow the Sola Scripturist's field of reference
from the Bible alone to all Scripture written prior to the time of Isaiah.
If anyone doesn't speak according to this word (i.e.. Genesis to Isaiah 8)
he has no light. But what happens when the New Covenant arrives? Indeed,
with respect to Isaiah 8, what would be made of Jesus when he says "you have
heard" (quotes the Law) but I say to you" (cf. Matt 5:21 (Ex 20:13; Duet
5:17) => Matt 5:22; Matt 5:27 (Ex 20:14; Duet 5:18) => Matt 5:28; Matt 5:31
(Deut 24:1,3) => Matt 5:32; Matt 5:33 (Lev 19:12; Num 30:32; Deut 20:21,
23)=> Matt 5:34; Matt 5:38 (Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21)=> Matt 5:39;
Matt 5:43 (Lev 19:18; Deut 23:3-6)=> Matt 5:44). Would Isaiah 8 see his
words as having light? Or what would happen to Peter's vision to slaughter
and eat animals which the Law forbade eating (cf. Act 10:13 (Lev 11:20-25;
Deut 14:4-20)? Had Peter said what he did in Act 10:28 would a Christian
obeying Isaiah 8:20 see Peter's claimed revelation as having light?
D) This point is the most important. Verse 20 is the most important verse of
this passage, but there is a very serious problem on how it is supposed to
be read (let alone interpreted). Evangelical scholar John Oswalt says, "The
Hebrew of this sentence presents numerous problems" (Oswalt, NICOT, vol 1.
230). The Hebrew text is not clear just who is speaking in v.20! A neutral
third party for a translation of this verse, the Tanakh translation done
exclusively by Jewish scholars, reads: "Bind up the message, seal the
instruction with my disciples. . . . Now, should people say to you, 'Inquire
of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan; for a people may
inquire of its divine beings--of the dead on behalf of the living--for
instruction and message,' surely, for one who speaks thus there shall be no
dawn." Thus, the "instruction and message" they were looking for in v.20
came from necromancy, not from Scripture or even Isaiah's message (see also
the NEB, REB, RSV, NRSV, JB, NJB, Goodspeed-Smith).
E) Given the difficulties this passage presents (not only in its
interpretation, but even its correct reading) to an unlearned person (like
myself) and to scholars (Jewish, Catholic and Protestant alike), I'd say
that this passage fails to met the criterion of West. Conf. 1:7 which reads,
All things in Scripture . . . which are necessary to be known, believed, and
observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place
of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a
due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of
them.
Sola Scriptura may possibly be proved elsewhere, but not here.
3) Protestants also make the argument that Our Lord appeals to the
inscripturated Word when tempted by the devil (Matt 4; Lk 4) and when he
confronts the Pharisees (Matt 12:3,5; 19:4, 21:16, 42; 22:31; Mk 2:25;
12:10,26; Lk 6:3). We must follow Christ as our ultimate example (1John
2:6). The problem with this argument is that it is not an argument. It
doesn't end with a "therefore." If the point is that we ought to also refer
to Scripture when engaged in controversy - Catholics agree. Amen! But this
is not the point at issue! Catholics believe that the Scripture is
authoritative. It's the exclusionary "Sola" that is at issue. If, however,
Protestants contend that Jesus quoted the Scriptures as authoritative in
controversies with the Jews and demons and therefore Scripture alone is the
Christian's sole and exclusive touchstone of orthodoxy, I don't see how the
conclusion follows. It seems to fall victim to several logical fallacies.
What is needed is a clear, perspicuous command in Scripture for Christians
to follow the Scripture alone.
4) The use of John 5:39 as a proof text is surprising since Our Lord seems
to indicate that Jews were (or are) placing their faith in Scripture instead
of He of whom they testify. Bibliolatry! Scripture indeed testifies to
Jesus, but Scripture alone? What about a star guiding the magi? It testified
to Jesus as well; also the signs, miracles, wonders, healing, demons etc..
So, the Bible does indeed testify to Jesus, but not Scripture alone.
5) Protestants also argue that in Luke 16:29-31, Jesus expresses the
sufficiency of Scripture (apart from the miraculous) to lead to Faith... The
brothers of the rich man in hell had sufficient cause, via the witness of
Scripture. Agreed, but it alone does not lead to faith. Grace is needed. <g>
Also, the Word itself says "How then shall they call on him in whom they
have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not
heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach
except they be sent? (Rom 10:14-15) Here we have a Christian didactic on how
the faith is to be passed on. It is not the "the believer alone, with the
Bible alone, led by the Spirit alone." Rather the saving message is
primarily expounded, explained and proclaimed by those "who are sent."
Condemnation falls on all who reject God's revelation. This is true of
written and oral Tradition. Jesus says that "The one who listens to you
listens to Me and the one who rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me
rejects the One who sent me" and those who reject the Son will face
condemnation (John 12:49).
6) Regarding Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council, Protestants raise the
following points:
A) "If Peter, the Church, or Tradition were to be regarded with equal
authority, why then does James make his appeal to Scripture alone?"
I answer that James does not make an appeal to Scripture alone. When James
stood up and spoke, his answer did not address the circumcision party
arguments, the debate in general, nor Paul and Barnabas' stories, rather he
refers to two things 1) Simeon's (Peter's) speech which was given sometime
early in the council and 2) Scripture. Had it been Scripture alone, James
would have stood up and quoted only Scripture. What did James think - that
Peter had some sort of authority?
What is the question that is at issue? I would argue that the point of
conflict is not whether Gentiles could enter the Church. I believe that this
question was favorably resolved for Christians (included those circumcised)
by Peter's disclosure of his vision in Act 11:1-18ff (esp. 18). It was the
idea of Gentiles entering into the Church that brought joy to all and a
missionary force sent to reap the Gentile harvest had been well under way by
the time of the Council of Jerusalem. The conflict and debate between Paul
and Barnabas and the Jewish Christians was not "whether" Gentiles should
come into the Church but rather "how" the Gentiles were to come into the
Church. It was a soteriological question, not an ecclesiastical one.
"'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be
saved," stated by the Jewish Christians twice in Acts 15:1 and again in
Jerusalem in Acts 15:5. It was this that started the "great dissension and
debate" in both places.
Now, does James' quotation of Amos settle the "point at issue?" I do not see
anything in the citation that explicitly or even implicitly bears on the
question of whether Gentile converts should be circumcised and obey the
Mosaic customs or not. If James is really answering the point at issue, he
must be employing some sort of rabbinical interpretative tradition to the
text that we today do not understand. Granting this, how can Sola Scriptura
be in use?
B) "Peter doesn't stand out as a the central figure... Peter speaks out,
yes, but it is the citation of scripture by James which moves the assembly
to action."
Yes, but note the chronology of the council. The council starts with a
debate between the circumcision party and the "faith" party. When there had
been much debate, Peter stood up and declared that all attending knew that
God has chosen his mouth to bring the word of the Gospel to the Gentiles and
it was confirmed by signs. Peter concludes, "Now therefore why do you put
God to the test ...we believe that we are saved by grace in the same way as
they also are.' (Act 15:7-11) Peter's proclamation ends the debate "And all
the multitude kept silent" (Act 15:12). After this, Paul and Barnabas share
their experiences among the Gentiles and when they had finished James speaks
(Act 15:13). There is no mention of further objections or debate after
Peter's decree. James' speech cites, not Paul or Barnabas who were the last
to speak, but Peter and the Amos. It seems to me the question was settled by
Peter.
So what about James' decisions and the Church springing into action? Note,
James' decision does not override Peter's declaration. Peter said "no
circumcision." James does not counter, "Well, maybe in densely populated
Jewish areas gentiles should be circumcised." Instead, everything James says
agrees with Peter's decision. His is a pastoral concern on how best to
implement this decision. When James' plan found favor the implementation was
put into action. Also note that the agreement of all assembled was mentioned
only for James' qualification and not for Peter's decision (it was not up
for a vote). Also note whose decrees are entirely binding on Christians
today.
7) "Numerous references can be cited for the position of Sola Scriptura
which clearly indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient, and no where in
Scripture do we find even a hint that these need to be supplemented by
church councils or papal decrees of any kind."
Why, then does the Scripture contain an account of a Church council called
to settle a dispute over the "clear" meaning of Scripture on circumcision
and the abiding applicability of the rest of the Mosaic Law? If it is true
that every Christian could settle this issue for himself by simply reading
the Scriptures, why was the Jerusalem Council called in the first place?
8) "Paul appealed again and again to Scripture ... By example, Paul has set
a precedent of Sola Scriptura. Paul does not ask people to consult the
Church, nor 'Pope Peter' for their answers concerning the Christian faith."
The fact of the matter is that Paul does not appeal, quote, nor draw from
Scripture alone. He also consults and appeals to his own revelations from
God (Gal 1:11-12); Pope Peter (Gal 1:18;2:2); Church councils (Act15:1ff);
uninscripturated Tradition (Act 20:35; 1Cor 15:29); and even liturgical
hymns (Phil 2:6; Col 1:15; Eph 5:24). Once again, as was the case with
Jesus' example, even if Paul only appealed to Scripture alone this argument
would either be begging the question (by assuming the truthfulness of Sola
Scriptura) or arguing from silence.
9) God's revelation is wholly committed to writing (i.e. Sola Scriptura),
and no other authority is mentioned in Scripture besides Scripture, hence:
Sola Scriptura is our only authority.
If one does not hold at the outset of the discussion that God's revelation
has been wholly committed to writing, it would be an argument from silence.
But it would not be too difficult to demonstrate from Scripture's silence
that Our Lord did not intend the New Covenant's revelation to be cosigned
wholly unto writing. Consider these nine points as significant omissions:
i) Jesus never wrote
ii) Jesus never explicitly commanded the Apostles to write.
iii) Jesus never commanded (or even hinted at) non-Apostles writing (Mk, Lk,
Jude, James).
iv) Jesus is not said to have sent the Holy Spirit to aid the Apostles
primary in writing.
v) Jesus is not said to have sent the Holy Spirit to aid non-Apostles in
writing.
vi) Jesus never promised that the Holy Spirit would protect the transmission
of the written word.
vii) The inspired Apostles and non-Apostles never explicitly command
Christian to follow the O.T. and their writings alone.
viii) Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever mentioned that oral Tradition
would be at some point in the future replaced by writings.
ix) Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever mentioned anything about collecting
all their writings into an authoritative collection for future followers.
Assuming Sola Scriptura's position, these are very, very significant
omissions. If you don't assume Sola Scriptura at the outset, this likewise
would be an argument from silence.
10) What about Acts 17:11?: "[The Bereans] examined the scriptures every day
to see whether these things were so." (NRSV)
When the Apostles recounted Our Lord's words "You must be born of water and
spirit," did the Christians say "Hold on, let me pull out my pocket
Pentateuch to see if this is so?" Would they be called "fair-minded" or
"noble"? Is there any example in the New Testament of any Christian doing
this and being called "more noble?" Even if there were such a "fair-minded"
Christians, I believe the Christian community would think of them as being
the opposite of "fair-minded." They would probably wonder if this person
really believes that Jesus is the Christ - the one who will declare all
things. In conclusion, the word for "fair-minded" or "noble" is only used in
this way as referring to potential converts. There are no "fair-minded"
Christians - at least not until the advent of the so-called "Higher
Criticism" <g>.
11) I say "Amen" to Acts 24:14 (and the whole of Scripture for that matter
<g>). Christians believe all things which are written in the Law and
Prophets. As Paul says in Galatians 6:16: Christianity is the true "Israel
of God." Christians also believe that there is a continuity and full
flowering of the Old Testament in the New, but not a "one to one"
correspondence between the two. This fundamental difference makes it
impossible to appeal to the Old Testament for all New Testament doctrine.
12) Nearly all the typical New Testament "proof texts" for Sola Scriptura
(except Lk 24:27; 2Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19) deal with Christian interaction
with non-Christians (demons, antagonistic Jews, inquiring Jews and Greek
"God fearers"), and are not concerned with how a Christian is to receive
Christian doctrine. What good would appealing to say Our Lord's oral
instructions - say the laying on of hands or the authority and teachings of
the Apostles - if one has not first come to the knowledge that is Jesus is
not only a good teacher, or even the Messiah but God made flesh? I think
this is why the case for Sola Scriptura begins to fade quite badly once one
leaves the Gospels and comes to the Pastoral and Catholic epistles.
13) 2 Timothy 3:16 is regarded by many Protestants as the best citation for
Sola Scriptura in the New Testament. Here we have an inspired Apostle
speaking to a Christian disciple on where and how he is to receive Christian
doctrine. In fact, this passage goes even further. It says that all
Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for DOCTRINE, REPROOF,
CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. There is no better place in
Scripture for Paul to definitively establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
then here, but does he?
For brevity's sake, I will state here what I believe is the biggest problem
with this passage. Paul has the perfect opportunity to nail down the
doctrine of Sola Scriptura explicitly and perspicuously in 2 Timothy 3:16.
But the Holy Spirit leads Paul to do just the opposite by using the word
ophalimos which can be translated "profitable, helpful, advantageous,
useful." Why would the Holy Spirit use a word which so strongly implies its
own insufficiency?
If Scripture is only "profitable" for doctrine and so on, what else does
Paul and the Holy Spirit have in mind that is also necessary to complete the
man of God? 2 Tim 3:15 tells us... Timothy is to continue in the things he
has learned (oral instruction) drawing confidence in these teachings
truthfulness by knowing who he had received them and Holy Writ. In this one
verse, we have an authoritative oral tradition, safeguarded by an authority
(Paul and others). By knowing this, Scripture is able to make Timothy wise
unto salvation. Sound familiar? This explains perfectly why Paul was
inspired to write 2 Timothy 3:16 using a word which permits (and strongly
implies) other authorities. If one grants this position, I believe 2 Tim
3:16 fits perfectly within the context of the whole letter and to hold
otherwise would cause some serious contextual problems.
14) Another proof text often raised is 2 Peter 1:19-21. But the text in fact
works better as an argument for Sacred Tradition. It reads,
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a
light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star
rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is
of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man,
but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter
1:19-20)
One Protestant wrote:
" Never once did they imply that extra-Scriptural Tradition was needed to
supplement Scripture, or that any man or group of men was authorized to give
authoritative interpretations of Scripture."
Lets start in verse 20 and work our way up. Verse 20 reads, "that no
prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never
came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the
Holy Spirit." Notice that Peter says (and Scripture cannot be put aside)
that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation." Why can't
we privately interpret Scripture? Answer: Because Scripture never came by
the will of man but they prophesied by the Holy Spirit. Well, how then do we
interpret Holy Scripture since we are not prophets? Answer: verse 19, " And
so we have the prophetic word confirmed <or made firm>, which you do well to
heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the
morning star rises in your hearts" Who is the we in this passage? Peter and
the Apostles (vs. 16-18). Who is the you?: the readers of the letter. What
are the readers directed to heed? Scripture alone? No, the Apostles'
prophetic teaching and witness which didn't come by human will. This is the
standard of orthodoxy. Those who do not follow this rule of faith as a sure
guide to biblical interpretation wrest the Scriptures to their own
destruction (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16). Catholics have a visible authority aware
of uninscripturated Tradition (vs. 16-19), which is the rule of Faith and
correct interpretation of Scripture (vs. 19-20).
Again, this is not merely Catholic bias. Even a liberal Protestant exegete
such as the Lutheran scholar Ernst Kasemann can write,
For even exegesis, which now takes the place of prophecy, is exposed to the
threat of error, as the example of the exegesis of Paul's letters shows
(3:15f). It must therefore be regulated; this is done by tying it to the
Church's teaching office. Feine's statement ...is therefore accurate: 'Thus
the Church is here the possessor of the correct interpretation of the
Scripture, just because she is the possessor of the correct teaching.' In
the same breath with the Church is called to hear and obey the Scriptures,
it must be impressed upon here that personal exegesis, undertaken by the
individual, not authorized or prescribed by the official teaching ministry,
is not permitted. (Essays on New Testament Themes, p. 190)
Likewise, Oscar Holtzmann,
Our epistle already considers an ecclesiastical authoritative interpretation
to be essential (ibid. 189).
In some ways, I think liberal Protestant scholars, in some cases, grapple
with the interpretation of the texts more honestly because they don't hold
fast to the doctrine of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, so they
don't have to live with their results!
Protestants will cite this passage to demonstrate that it is the movement of
the Holy Spirit that produces Holy Scripture and that the same cannot be
said of oral Tradition (big or small "T" ). But what did the holy men of
God, moved by the Holy Spirit, do? Did they write? Surely, that is implied
here, but what did the same Holy Spirit move Peter to write? They spoke!
Here we have a clear and undeniable affirmation of the inspiration of holy
men's oral pronouncements. Again, this is not a biased injection of
Catholicism into the text. The New Bible Dictionary comments,
The essential idea here is that all of Scripture has the same character as
the prophets' sermons had, both when preached and when written. (NBD, art.
Inspiration).
After all, the Jews didn't have to wait for Isaiah's pronouncements to be
written before they became binding! If they did then greatest prophet of the
Old Testament -Elijah - still has yet to make any binding prophecy! There is
a great irony here!
15) It is the same with the inspired Apostles of the New Testament. When
they taught, instructed and preached it was the "Word of God" and therefore
binding upon all. "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you
received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the
word of men, but as what is really is, the word of God, which is at work in
you believers." (1Thes 2:13) Our Lord himself promises them this, "I have
many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He,
the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will
not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and
He will disclose to you what is to come." (Jn 16:12-13).
The truthfulness of the spoken Word is also guaranteed, "I do not ask Thee
to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are
not in the world, even as I am not of the world. sanctify them in the truth;
thy word is truth. [this sanctification in truth is part of the Apostolic
mission] As thou didst sent me into the world, I also have sent them into
the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also
may be sanctified in truth."
This charism of truth is not for their sakes but for the unity of all the
Church. "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who
believe in Me through their word: that they may all be one; even as thou,
Father, are in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; [this is a
visible unity] that the world may believe that thou didst sent me." (Jn
17:15-21) Thus the Apostles' teaching, preaching and instruction has divine
authority. "The one who listens to you listens to Me and the one who rejects
you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent me." (Luke
10:16)
This inspired preaching and teaching includes not just the Gospel but all
that Jesus taught, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to
me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them... teach
them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
to the close of the age." (Matt 28:18)
And please note what the early Christians are said to have done under the
leadership of the Apostles. Did they "nobly" devote themselves to studying
the Old Testament to see whether their teachings are true? That not what
Acts 2:42 says, "And they continually devoted themselves to the apostles'
teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." The
Amplified Bible translates this part "And they steadfastly persevered,
devoting themselves constantly to the instruction and fellowship of the
apostles." This passage may also refer to a set liturgy even that this early
stage of development. The last part of this passage read literally from the
NA-26, "and to the prayers" (note the use of the article). Certainly they
also devoted themselves to Scripture as well, but note what the Holy Spirit
has moved Luke write - the apostles' teaching. (cf. 1Cor 11:2).
This teaching and preaching of the apostles are passed on to the Christian
community through two media - written letters and oral instruction. "So
then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught,
whether way word of mouth or by letter from us." (2Thes 2:15) Note that BOTH
the written and the oral teaching of the apostle are called "Tradition" and
BOTH are binding. Here is a clear, perspicuous didactic for Christians on
how they are to receive God's Word - oral and written by a chosen authority.
"And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and
will continue to do what WE command." (2Thes 3:4).
Likewise, How is Timothy (and his congregation) going to withstand the
assault of those who are prophesied to come with unsound doctrine? By
testing it against Scripture? Paul could have said that, but instead the
measure of orthodoxy is Timothy's instruction and spiritual formation under
Paul and others. "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be
a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of faith
and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." (1Tim 4:6). Here
the good servant is the authority, the words of faith and the sound doctrine
is Scripture and oral Tradition.
Paul passed on to Timothy an oral "schema" of orthodoxy and commanded him to
keep it and guard it. 2 Tim 1:13- Retain <imperative- you must retain> the
standard <outline, sketch, tupos> of the sound words. Guard <imperative- a
word means preserve and protect from damage> by the Holy Spirit the who
dwells in us, the treasure <bonum depositum> which is entrusted to you."
(also see Titus 1:9) By the Holy Spirit Timothy is to retain and preserve,
not only the sound words, but the sound words as taught and formed by the
Christian Church. This authoritative deposit is to be passed on to others
through succession. "And the things which you have heard from me in the
presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able
to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2) The touchstone of orthodoxy is not
settled by an appeal to Scripture alone, but rather to the entire depositum
fidei which is the written word as understood in the context of the
apostolic oral instruction. "Now I urge you, brethren, keep out eye on those
who cause dissensions and hindrance contrary to the teaching which you
learned, and turn away from them" (Rom 16:17).
The oral instruction, teaching of the Apostles goes beyond what they had
written. Twice at the end of John's gospel it states that "And there are
also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written
every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written" (John 21:25). John 20:31 also says that enough was
written so that the reader would believe that Jesus is the Messiah. There
are no attempts by the inspired authors to consign to writing all Christian
doctrine. In fact, subjects are picked up in writing only partially because
the readers have already received sufficient oral instruction on the
subject. For example, look at 2 Thes. 2:3-12 where Paul talks very
mysteriously about the man of sin. If you look the passage itself, it not
clear at all who or what Paul is talking about, but the Thessalonians knew.
How? 2Thes 2:5- "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was
telling you these things?"
The Apostles, through the Holy Spirit, saw the need to prepare the future
Church to always remember and remain in the faith once and for all handed on
to the saints. There is no indication that they wished to consign the entire
deposit of faith "wholly unto writings". Peter himself indicates this in 2
Peter 1:15, "And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure
< i.e. death> you may be able to call these things to mind." Did he go one
to write 3 Peter for this purpose? We ought to ask someone who knew the
Apostles personally like Pope St. Clement of Rome, who around the year 80
A.D. wrote, "Our Apostles knew through our lord Jesus Christ that there
would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having
received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been
mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should
die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Letter to the
Corinthians 44:1-2)
16) Protestants often forget that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not do
away with an authoritative interpretator who takes precedence over the
written Word and interprets it. It merely transfers said authority from a
visible Church who binds all Christians in doctrinal unity to the "spirit
led" individual. As the great Christian apologist Arnold Lunn once remarked,
"In Protestantism, every man is his own Pope and his home is his Vatican."
But Lunn has seriously understated the Protestant position. Under Sola
Scriptura, authoritative interpretation is not ultimately bound by any
historic Christian expression. At least the Catholic Church is bound by its
own history and can be judged by it.
The long and short of it is that no adherent of Sola Scriptura can truly say
"Thus saith the Lord" without first adding "I think" or "right now." The
result of this practice is devastating - over 24,000 competing Protestant
denominations, sects and cults worldwide. If this is the way the true
Christian church is to operate? How can they meaningfully employ Matthew
18:15-18? The best any pastor can say is, "Well, according to my own
fallible understanding of Scripture (or our denomination's fallible
understanding), it seems that you are sinning and you should be treated as a
Publican." What will prevent the sinner from going across the street to
another church which, while appealing to the same inspired text, accepts his
behavior as truly Christian?
Bible and Tradition Index / Main Index & Search
Copyright 1996 by Gary Michuta. All rights reserved.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> Hey, Ihug, when are you going to respond on the subject of Biblical
> Authority being entirely unBiblical?
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, ihug wrote:
>
> > > Please don't be offended by PP.
> > > Everyone knows he just likes to hear himself rant and rave.
> > > He's kinda like the popes 2nd lieutenant: He keeps spouting off but no
one
> > pays
> > > any attention to
> > > him.
> > > God bless you,
> > > CB
> >
> >
> > Thank you, yes it does seem he is very closed minded. His 'responses'
never
> > actually respond to what I say, but rather tries to prove his catholic
faith
> > using irrelevent, twisted scripture. It is unfortunate that scripture
can
> > be abused and used out of context to convince fools of just about
anything.
> > That is after all what satan tried to do to Jesus.
> >
> > But, PP, we are not all fools.
> >
> > PR 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
> > but fools* despise wisdom and discipline.
> >
> > Love and blessings
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
>
Fringe4
> mindless responses. [;-)
>
> Dia's Muire duit
>
> Joe M
And do you notice how he never actually responds to the post? He only
insults a persons character.
Yours, Fringe4