- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote The church is not all that? What? Do you even CLAIM to be a Christian?
The church, i.e. religious sect, has its purpose in that it is constructed so that each member serves in his role for God. Each can also be encouraged by and encourages other members of the body in their pursuit of righteousness.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote What standard do you use to determine whether the Church's doctrine is false?
God is the standard. If the doctrine is at odds with God’s nature then it is false.
The Catholic teaching of indulgences seems clearly to be based on human effort. This point seemed to be evident to Martin Luther even though his solution was no better. You do not erase your previous evil by doing good but instead you become a new person through faith in Jesus the Anointed One and because you are a new person you do good.
God desires you to do all that is right and can do it for you if you chose to follow the way he prepared.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote What makes you believe that you are hearing the Holy Spirit better than me or millions of Christians who have lived before us?
I do not make such a statement but I do test what you appear to know against the nature of God.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Only those purchased with the blood of God are saved. This passage states that it is the CHURCH that is purchased with His blood.
And yet we are told that there are those numbered in the church that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote If you're not in the Church, please stop reading 1 Corinthians. It is not addressed to you.
I am certainly not a member of the Church in Corinth at the period of time the letter was written but I still can get useful information from the letter to those individuals. Not all letters are addressed to out-callings as some were addressed to individuals like Titus and Timothy.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Plus, you have no proof that either of those epistles are inspired or should be in the Bible. Except “Pray about it and the Lord will show you they belong.”
They are for the most part in agreement with God. I have some question about Paul’s reference to a dress code in the 2 letter of Corinthians but I believe he was addressing a situation specific to that church at that time. Note: I am going by memory any correction is welcome.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote What the Spirit reveals to someone personally IS private revelation.
That would contradict scripture as prophecy was often revealed to someone privately and then they went out and told others what God told them.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote You are not meant to be an orphan and a stranger searching in a sea of doubt all of your days. There is a reason why you have not been rendered infallible. There is a reason why you can be wrong. We need to recognize our own weaknesses.
Prophets! Elijah comes to mind.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote But what happens if you die before you “learn” what is essential for your salvation? Does God want you to be in such a state?
God judges us according to what we know.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote There is no internal evidence that John was writing to anyone besides the first century audience to which the epistle was addressed.
He was specifically writing to them but what he wrote applies to any Christian.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote But this is not the case. There are many things you have been wrong about since you decided to follow Jesus. There are things that myriads of other Christians who are sincere and love the Lord and desire to live holy disagree about. Why are they not rendered infallible? Why do they anathemize each other's positions?
The implications of what I stated is that even after getting the Spirit one can reject it and choose to follow Satan. That is what causes the divisions among those who seek God. Hopefully we will become more mature and see our sin for what it is; and then confess it; for God is faithful and will cleanse us of all unrighteousness.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 02 2009,17:43) Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote The church is not all that? What? Do you even CLAIM to be a Christian?
The church, i.e. religious sect, has its purpose in that it is constructed so that each member serves in his role for God. Each can also be encouraged by and encourages other members of the body in their pursuit of righteousness.
Your definition of Church is “religious sect”? We should define terms. I'm talking about something that there only exists ONE of.Quote Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote What standard do you use to determine whether the Church's doctrine is false?
God is the standard. If the doctrine is at odds with God’s nature then it is false.
How do you know FOR SURE what God's nature is? BTW, a concept of “what God's nature is” happens to be…you guessed it…A DOCTRINE. Can we say circular logic?
Quote The Catholic teaching of indulgences seems clearly to be based on human effort. This point seemed to be evident to Martin Luther even though his solution was no better. You do not erase your previous evil by doing good but instead you become a new person through faith in Jesus the Anointed One and because you are a new person you do good. Sigh…Please go read what we believe. Indulgences are for people WHO ARE ALREADY FORGIVEN.
BTW, Martin Luther BELIEVED IN AND SUPPORTED INDULGENCES. Go read the 95 theses.
Quote God desires you to do all that is right and can do it for you if you chose to follow the way he prepared. Do you always presume to teach when you should be seeking to understand and listening?
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote What makes you believe that you are hearing the Holy Spirit better than me or millions of Christians who have lived before us?
I do not make such a statement but I do test what you appear to know against the nature of God.
Which you have no assurance regarding WHAT that nature IS and IS NOT. You have a partial picture.
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote Only those purchased with the blood of God are saved. This passage states that it is the CHURCH that is purchased with His blood.
And yet we are told that there are those numbered in the church that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Duh…So I guess we deduce that you should NOT ONLY be a part of the church outwardly by attending…but you should be TRULY a member of Christ's body the Church by having BOTH aspects manifested in you:
1. Spiritual Integrity and Holiness
2. Physical Devotion and Service
You can't separate the Spiritual from the Physical anymore than you can separate the soul from the body without dire consequences.
You need to gather with the visible/invisible Catholic Church.
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote If you're not in the Church, please stop reading 1 Corinthians. It is not addressed to you.
I am certainly not a member of the Church in Corinth at the period of time the letter was written but I still can get useful information from the letter to those individuals. Not all letters are addressed to out-callings as some were addressed to individuals like Titus and Timothy.
You sounded partially Catholic there for a minute. Good job.
Please remember that we need to be aware of the specific parties various Scriptural books are addressed to or for. (i.e. you don't want to apply the principles in 1 Cor. 7 – come together because of your lack of continence – to…say…a single person and their girlfriend)
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote Plus, you have no proof that either of those epistles are inspired or should be in the Bible. Except “Pray about it and the Lord will show you they belong.”
They are for the most part in agreement with God.
How can you presume to know WHAT God does or does not agree with?
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote: Quote What the Spirit reveals to someone personally IS private revelation.
That would contradict scripture as prophecy was often revealed to someone privately and then they went out and told others what God told them.
We're not connecting here. Let's try yet again. When I said:
“What the Spirit reveals to someone personally IS private revelation.”
I meant that this is the definition of “private revelation” when we use the term. The term has nothing to do with whether you can go and tell someone or not. It has to do with the concept of receiving a message personally (or privately – the two words would be synonymous).
Quote The implications of what I stated is that even after getting the Spirit one can reject it and choose to follow Satan. That is what causes the divisions among those who seek God. Come on, dude! I'm not talking about people who are rejecting God. I'm talking about sincere people like you, me, and a LOT of other people who try to follow God with all of their might in sincerity and truth…but they just can't get to a place of agreement with each other or within themselves. Well, I'm saying I have that place of assurance. Catholics agree and are in unity of doctrine and always have been.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Your definition of Church is “religious sect”? We should define terms. I'm talking about something that there only exists ONE of.
There is only one true sect of the Anointed One and it was called the sect of the Nazarene at one time and may still be referred to by that name.
Acts 24:5(NIV) reads:
Quote We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote How do you know FOR SURE what God's nature is? BTW, a concept of “what God's nature is” happens to be…you guessed it…A DOCTRINE. Can we say circular logic?
I suppose you could call it a doctrine but if you are not worshiping the true God then you are worshiping a false God.
The nature of the true God is testified of in scripture and verified by nature. Should I use the examples Jesus used of the sparrow and the lily or do you know that lesson? Or do you want me to point out the battle between good and evil that takes place even in the biology of all living creatures?
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Sigh…Please go read what we believe. Indulgences are for people WHO ARE ALREADY FORGIVEN.
I have heard that indulgences are done for full or partial remittance of the temporal punishment due for a person’s sins. It is claimed to occur after the individual has reached a state of forgiveness. The apparent problem with indulgences is that they sound like the Buddhist idea of Karma where a person used good Karma to eliminate or balance out past bad Karma. You cannot make amends to God for your sins. You can only change your ways and do what is right and that is what you should have been doing anyways. You can and should make amends to your neighbors when you sin against them.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Which you have no assurance regarding WHAT that nature IS and IS NOT. You have a partial picture.
I know enough to get started. I know God is righteous and cannot even be tempted by evil. I also know he desires we are righteous as he is righteous. I know he promises that those that hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled with righteousness. I know he can do it and will because he keeps his promises. I also know that he provided a way and that way is obeying all the teachings of Jesus the Anointed One. I believe I have yet to learn all the teachings of Jesus.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Duh…So I guess we deduce that you should NOT ONLY be a part of the church outwardly by attending…but you should be TRULY a member of Christ's body the Church by having BOTH aspects manifested in you:
That sounds like you have shifted the definition of Church. I am not sure I understand what you mean by either Spiritual or Physical. I define spiritual as being closely akin to interests, attitudes, outlooks, etc. This would mean that a Christians interests, attitudes, outlooks, and the like are guided by the command love your neighbor as yourself. The physical devotion would those actions that come from the Spirit. I have the feeling you probably see it somewhat differently.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote You sounded partially Catholic there for a minute. Good job.
Then perhaps you are misunderstanding non-Catholics are some points.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote How can you presume to know WHAT God does or does not agree with?
It is self evident to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote We're not connecting here. Let's try yet again. When I said:
Private interpretation is defined as from yourself while Godly interpretation comes from God. Either one can be personal as both the true Prophets and false Prophets received personal interpretation but the true Prophets interpretation was not their own but instead came from God.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Come on, dude! I'm not talking about people who are rejecting God
You misunderstand me as many Christians struggle with walking according to the ways of the flesh instead of the Spirit. Sadly, if we choose to walk by the flesh then we do the Devil’s work even in what we believe.
Galatians 5:16:21(KJV) reads:
Quote This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
We learn and we change our ways if we are truly seeking God.
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote:
QuoteSigh…Please go read what we believe. Indulgences are for people WHO ARE ALREADY FORGIVEN.
I have heard that indulgences are done for full or partial remittance of the temporal punishment due for a person’s sins. It is claimed to occur after the individual has reached a state of forgiveness. The apparent problem with indulgences is that they sound like the Buddhist idea of Karma where a person used good Karma to eliminate or balance out past bad Karma. You cannot make amends to God for your sins. You can only change your ways and do what is right and that is what you should have been doing anyways. You can and should make amends to your neighbors when you sin against them.
Go read the story of Zacchaeus and you'll get a better idea of how this is different from the concept of Karma. Well, hopefully you will.
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote:
QuoteWhich you have no assurance regarding WHAT that nature IS and IS NOT. You have a partial picture.
I know enough to get started. I know God is righteous and cannot even be tempted by evil. I also know he desires we are righteous as he is righteous. I know he promises that those that hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled with righteousness. I know he can do it and will because he keeps his promises. I also know that he provided a way and that way is obeying all the teachings of Jesus the Anointed One. I believe I have yet to learn all the teachings of Jesus.
But how can you KNOW that? You CAN NOT substantiate inspiration or canonicity for the books of James or Matthew. (the books you cited references from)
You can't start with the assumption that certain Scriptures are infallible and canonical UNTIL you SUBSTANTIATE on what grounds they are thus.
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote:
QuoteWe're not connecting here. Let's try yet again. When I said:
Private interpretation is defined as from yourself while Godly interpretation comes from God. Either one can be personal as both the true Prophets and false Prophets received personal interpretation but the true Prophets interpretation was not their own but instead came from God.
Korah had an interpretation. Moses had an interpretation.
Which one was right?
Korah practiced private interpretation.
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote:
QuoteCome on, dude! I'm not talking about people who are rejecting God
You misunderstand me as many Christians struggle with walking according to the ways of the flesh instead of the Spirit. Sadly, if we choose to walk by the flesh then we do the Devil’s work even in what we believe.
Galatians 5:16:21(KJV) reads:
QuoteThis I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
We learn and we change our ways if we are truly seeking God.
Again, I'm talking about men who are striving to live holy and walk in the Spirit. Very scrupulous and god fearing men we're talking about here.
Examples are plenteous that these men disagree with one another on fundamental points of doctrine.
Hi CA,
Religious scruples is not a sign of the Spirit of God.
Rather is is the work of men trying to save themselves.
Whoever wants to save his own life will lose it.Jesus offers freedom from such heavy burdens
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Go read the story of Zacchaeus and you'll get a better idea of how this is different from the concept of Karma. Well, hopefully you will.
Luke 19:1-10(NIV) reads:
Quote Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' ” But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”
You mean the above story? It looks to me like Zacchaeus intended to make amends to those humans he wronged and not to God. That is neither indulgences or penance.
Proverbs 14:9(NIV) reads:
Quote Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright.
Making amends to men for your sins is a righteous action but it does not cover up your sins.
Sacrifices were done for the atonement of sin under the law but Jesus is our sacrifice and thus our indulgence for sin. Still, we should be careful not to treat his sacrifice as an unholy thing.
Isaiah 66:1-3(NIV) reads:
Quote This is what the LORD says:
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the LORD.
“This is the one I esteem:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit,
and trembles at my word.
But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote You can't start with the assumption that certain Scriptures are infallible and canonical UNTIL you SUBSTANTIATE on what grounds they are thus.
Are you stating that the Hebrew people did not know who God is? That Jesus was ignorant when he chose to quote Old Testament Scripture? That those you call Saints are liars when they testified of what Jesus stated. I ask because that appears to be the position you have chosen to take?
If you want to wax philosophical then I can prove nothing but “I think therefore I am” and that everything beyond that is taken on faith. That of course will not help you who find your priesthood in conflict with Jesus and those you refer to as Saints. On the other hand I can build from there to show you the path of reason I have chosen to believe in the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jesus.
I believe that the answer is contained in the promise, “blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled”.
Can you figure it out?
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Examples are plenteous that these men disagree with one another on fundamental points of doctrine.
Won’t happen as a disagreement on fundamental point of doctrine shows that at least one of the men are sinning. If the point is not fundamental then disagreement may happen but they will come to the decision that it is not fundamental and so they should not judge one another about the point.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Korah had an interpretation. Moses had an interpretation.
I have not read the Korah and so cannot give a informed opinion about it. Moses speaks the truth that is in God because he speaks of a righteous God who wants his people to be righteous. The problem with what Moses taught is that obedience to God’s commands is based on human effort but that served a purpose until Jesus was conceived, born, taught, died, and was resurrected.
Quote You mean the above story? It looks to me like Zacchaeus intended to make amends to those humans he wronged and not to God. That is neither indulgences or penance. So you don't believe that when we sin, we hurt God by hurting others?
Remember David's sin with Bathsheeba?
Against Thee alone have I sinned and done what is evil in thy sight!
God forgave him. (see the words of Nathan)
But David still lost the child. I thought David said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, against thee only have I sinned?
I hope you don't retain a spirit of stubbornness in your response. I will lose respect for you.
Be honest. Do you see this?
Quote Making amends to men for your sins is a righteous action but it does not cover up your sins. Uh…yeah…that is what we're saying, Kerwin. You need to have your sins atoned for. This can't happen without the shed blood of Christ and His merits.
But we're not talking about “covering up sins” or the “forgiveness of sins”
Quote Catholic Apologist wrote:
QuoteYou can't start with the assumption that certain Scriptures are infallible and canonical UNTIL you SUBSTANTIATE on what grounds they are thus.
Are you stating that the Hebrew people did not know who God is? That Jesus was ignorant when he chose to quote Old Testament Scripture? That those you call Saints are liars when they testified of what Jesus stated. I ask because that appears to be the position you have chosen to take?
Not at all. I'm saying that you don't know why any of the books in the Bible should be Scripture. You can't even begin to tell me the history and purpose for the Canon of Scriptures.
You don't have any good reasons for accepting the Canon of Scriptures you do.
You only believe that the present 66 books that you call the Bible ARE INDEED Holy Scripture because when you became a Christian someone handed you a Bible with 66 books and said “this is the word of God.”
That's called tradition. You believe in your canon because of tradition…albeit 20th century tradition.
Come on, admit it. You didn't go search piles of manuscript evidence to try to determine what books belonged in the list considered to be inerrant. You just accepted a man's word on faith that it was so.
Right?
Be honest before God.
Quote If you want to wax philosophical then I can prove nothing but “I think therefore I am” and that everything beyond that is taken on faith. Descartes (a devout Catholic) believed in the objective content of divine revelation, but he sought a way of presenting the reality of God to skeptics who would not accept revelation as an avenue of truth.
Descartes hoped to bring clarity to the belief in God by applying mathematical and scientific methods. He desired to build a kind of calculus of faith, starting from some fundamental principle which even the skeptics could not deny, and working to the undeniable existence of God. To this end, he began to examine everything in the world from the skeptic's point of view, creating a procedure that came to be known as “methodic doubt.”
He first concluded that the man's senses are not reliable. A stick looks straight when it is held in the air, but looks bent when it is stuck in the water. Since both the true and false images of the stick are presented to the mind by the same senses, the senses cannot be trusted.
(Here he ignored the fact that, using all of his senses, man can confirm the stick to be straight. This is characteristic of a scientific method that tends to dissect things and isolate one attribute from all others when analyzing anything.)
Next he concluded that the mind of man, trapped inside a body fed unreliable information by the senses, cannot be certain that the images it receives truly represent reality. He went so far as to speculate that some evil higher being could be feeding the information to the mind, making it think that there is an objective world out there when in fact there is not. In the long run, Descartes concluded that almost everything we normally take for granted can be doubted.
It was not that Descartes himself doubted. He was examining everything from the perspective of a skeptic to find something even the skeptic could not doubt. What he found is summed up in the phrase, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). No skeptic could doubt this. Even if the entire world is an illusion, the skeptic, by the simple fact that he is pondering the illusion, must admit that he himself exists.
After demonstrating the certainty of his own existence as a thinking mind, Descartes reasoned his way back to the existence of the world and to the existence of a God who is all good and therefore would not fool man by creating the world as an illusion.
The validity of Descartes' reasoning was challenged for being, among other things, circular, but an important.aspect of his thought remains with us to this day-the concept of man as a mind trapped in a body. It is because of Descartes' thus splitting man that today one can still pick up popular books about the so-called “mind/body problem.”
Descartes himself was not very interested in this problem. The important point is that this severing of the mind from the body was a direct divergence from the previously established Scholastic and Catholic view of man as a composed unity of body and soul. The human soul, in the Scholastic sense, is much more than a mind. It is the substantial form of a man. It is the nature of the soul to form the body, and the body and soul together are the man.
Man, in this sense, has direct knowledge of the objective world around him because he sees it, hears it, tastes it, puts his hands on it. It is evident to him, and need not be proven. This is not to say that some knowledge of the world does not result from proofs. Through proofs one can come to the knowledge, for example, that the tangent of an angle is always equal to the inverse of the cotangent of that same angle.
But one can know that a river exists by seeing it and putting one's feet in it. This type of knowledge is more certain than knowledge obtained by proofs. It cannot, and need not, be proven through a series of mathematical or logical propositions and conclusions.
Unfortunately, there was no great Scholastic philosopher among Descartes' associates to hammer this point home. As a consequence, modern philosophy has thought of man ever since in a dualistic manner: mind distinct from body.
Descartes' division of man created a division in modern philosophy itself. Some philosophers believed, like Descartes, that the only things we can know with certainty are concepts in the mind. These are the “Rationalists.” A counter-movement thought we can know things for sure only through our senses; what is in our minds, since it cannot be sensed, measured, and weighed, is basically unknowable. These are the “Empiricists.”
It is beyond the scope of our discussion here to trace out the various schools of thought spawned by these two philosophies, but it can be known that they all came to despair because each was looking at only a part of man while trying to understand how man as a whole can know things.
THIS IS THE CONTEXT OF “I think therefore I am”.
If we are going to have any intelligent discussion about this, I thought we should have the same background information and understanding.
Hi CA,
Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.
The traditions of men offer no such blessing.So….what Oral Tradition are you keeping along with the Word of God? Come one, you all want to be Biblical…right?
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” – 2 Thess. 2:15
Some clarification needed. When I say “along with the Word of God” I should have more accurately said “including as” the Word of God.
The Word of God is not just written.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
