CALVINISM IS SIMPLY THE GOSPEL BELIEVED

[Eternally Grateful]

This is funny EG.
I just told you a few posts ago that most Catholics don't even know their faith....
so how could you talk to them to find out what the CC teaches?

I do not need to talk to them to know what the CC teaches. I have studied and talked to many who know.

I would talk to them to see what THEY believe.. I could care less what the CC teaches.. I want to know what they believe

You're knowledgeable so I could discuss OSAS with you...
you think I could discuss this with a normal, every day Catholic?
No way.

No. Because they reject the notion. and probably do not even know what it means

but ask them what eternal life means..

They did?
What verses?
I don't see any grace in the Mosaic Covenant...

There is non,

but when jesus asked a jew what they had to do. what did they say? Keep the law. then they say they did just that.

the rejected Jesus because they did not think they need it

OK. But it's taken from John's gospel...20:23
You must admit that it sure sounds like Jesus is giving authority to forgive sins.

I think jesus gave the gospel. which has the power to forgive sin, and God gave that power to the disciples..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Really?
I thought it meant that bapism regenerates us....makes us new.

the doctrine states water baptism does this.

Well, if that's what it teaches, then I can't agree.
John baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit.
And I think John 3:5 is referring to physical birth.

Remember, John scolded the religious leaders demanding they provide proof they received remission of sin before he would baptize.

he baptized because of remission, not in order to give it to people..

Yes jesus baptised with the HS, and he will baptize with fire one day soon.

and I agree, john 3 is physical birth

 

[GodsGrace]

No, it isn't the same thing but it does have a similar, nearly identical effect on free will. If the future is known, you do not have free will.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Who are you?
Wm Lane Craig??
LOL

Let's make it simple. I'm not a philosopher....
Just because YOU KNOW something is going to happen....
does NOT mean you caused it to happen.

1. You offer your child ice-cream.
2. You know he likes vanilla.
3. He chooses vanilla ice-cream

Did you CAUSE him to choose vanilla?

Then we have second causes.
Same difference......it's exactly the same.
The second cause argument that calvinists have is meaningless.
(because it still depends on the first cause).

Source


I'd agree. The extent to which is it "WHO" it is never specific individuals that were predestined before they existed. Groups of people have been predestined in certain ways but who it is that will decided to join that group (or not to join it), is not predestined.

Perfect.

Not before they existed.

God is able to know enough about a person while they are still in the womb to select them for a particular purpose but even when He does that, it doesn't always work out so well and God has to choose someone else. King Saul and then King David come to mind.

No comment.
Don't know enough.
And never really thought about this.

But you say:
IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK OUT SO WELL AND GOD HAS TO CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE.

You mean God could make a mistake?

Are you getting philosophy mixed up with theology??
You're stating that God could make a mistake.
This is not possible.
If God is PERFECT,,,,He cannot make a mistake.

I'm not sure how to me more clear. You see a difference because there is a difference. God cannot and therefore does not know the unknowable, GG.

You said: God does not know the unknowable.

God knows EVERYTHING.
Isn't that what omniscient means?
Do I really need to post some verses?

1 John 3:20
Job 37:16

(and many others).

Which you believe because of Aristotle and Plato, not the scripture. Augustine is the one who introduced the idea of a timeless God into the church. It is utterly irrational nonsense. God does not exist outside of time because time is not a place or a thing,

Are you saying God exists INSIDE OF TIME??

What was present before the "big bang" or, the beginning of the universe?
NOTHING.
When the universe was created so was TIME.

God cannot be a part of creation, which includes time.
Therefore, God is OUTSIDE OF TIME.

If you make a watch...are you part of that watch?

it is an idea. It's an abstraction. It is a convention of language used to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It does not exists "ontologically" but only metaphysically. That is, it exists inside a thinking mind and nowhere else. It's nothing at all other than talking about events in terms of other events.

Agreed. But it's not correct to say that God is NOT timeless, He certainly is.
and God DOES exist outside of time.

And guess what Augustine based the idea of a timeless God on?!

Absolute, ontological, divine immutability! A doctrine he learned from Aristotle, not scripture and he taught to others who believed it and who then taught it to others, and so on, until it was eventually taught to you.

As you must know by now...I don't care for Augustine,
I don't learn from Augustine.

 

[Augustin56]

OK
So let's discuss for a few posts unless the OP stops us.
Here's how it is for Catholics....
Most go to church on Sunday (or Saturday) to attend Mass.
I doubt they even know what the Mass is or what the parts mean, etc.
Some go to confession....not too many - most do not believe they need to confess to a priest but only to God.

Those that are interested in their faith, do study and do inform themselves as to what the CC teaches.
They use the bible and they also use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, to me at least, is the same as using one of the Confessions in reformed theology. I don't know why it should be necessary.

@Augustin56 is one of those Catholics that knows what he believes and believes it anyway.
He also happens to be a very nice person and he'll repeat exactly what the CC teaches, which he accepts and not blindly.


Let's not get into this. This has been bothering me from before I came to this forum and I know that there's no solution.
Of course it's satan --- all evil comes from satan. And it IS evil that we Christians can't agree on some basics. (just like you and I don't agree on works and OSAS).


The CC is not leading thousands to hell.
It teaches the gospel.
It has some doctrine that seems really odd, but they know why the teach it.
It doesn't change the nature of God like the reformed faith does....that REALLY presents problems to the Christian faith.


Jesus, Paul, James, all the writers taught that we are to do good works. If I have to post verses it'll have to wait till the morning, but here are 2 that come to mind immediately...

Ephesians 2:9 or 10 WE ARE CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS

James 2:26 (?) FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS A DEAD FAITH.

Hebrews 13 DO NOT NEGLECT TO DO GOOD.

We're exhorted to do good works all throughout the entire NT.


I don't know what you mean by this. The Hebrews were picked by God.

They claim the have THE FULL TRUTH...
So what? At least they're not teaching heresy - like arianism for instance.
My understanding from the CCC is that the CC believes ALL religions have SOME TRUTH,,,but the CC has the full truth.


Every denomination believes this.


Agreed.

That's a long post!

First, let's differentiate between what any particular Catholic or Catholics know and what the Church actually teaches. It is the Church's teachings that are protected by Christ from error, not the individual Catholic's knowledge thereof. Throughout history, there have been ebbs and flows to the knowledge of the laity. Seems clear to me that we're in a down period at present, although I have to say I've noticed a market uptick in the young people lately in my parish. But, then again, I live in a large university parish that really has strong, effective programs. Confession is offered at regular times every day but Sunday (and Saturday's when there is a football game in town due to parking issues). Every time I've been, there have been a lot of students going to Confession. We also have Adoration each week and that is very well attended, as is daily Mass. Sunday night Mass is usually geared for the students and after Mass, there is pizza available ($3 for alll you can eat, but free if it's your first time). There are retreats for the students, etc. We have seen several vocations come out of this parish in the last few years, too. Sunday Mass is usually packed, except in the Summer when most of the students are gone. But overall, the students are knowledgeable and seem to have a very strong faith. So, the pastor is certainly doing something right.

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to Hebrews? (When I clicked reply, it only showed your part and I can't find my original post.)

From a logical standpoint, if someone founds a church or denomination 16 centuries after the original Church founded by Christ, and teaches anything different, then the difference is heresy. OR, they would have to show how Divine Revelation didn't end with the death of the last Apostle (John) and Jesus or an angel from heaven came back down to make "corrections" to what was always taught before. The only group I know that makes that claim are the Mormons, although the whole story is a little bit dubious. (An angel came down with some tablets with new information, but they couldn't read them so he gave them a stone to look through to translate. Then, they lost all of the tablets and stone.) And, they would have to show how Jesus delegated His authority to them to do so.

In the end, I think it boils down to authority. I know from my military days, that authority is given (delegated), never taken.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It is the Church's teachings that are protected by Christ from error,

From a logical standpoint, if someone founds a church or denomination 16 centuries after the original Church founded by Christ, and teaches anything different, then the difference is heresy.

In the end, I think it boils down to authority. I know from my military days, that authority is given (delegated), never taken.

@GodsGrace I rest my case

 

[Johann]

From a logical standpoint, if someone founds a church or denomination 16 centuries after the original Church founded by Christ, and teaches anything different, then the difference is heresy. OR, they would have to show how Divine Revelation didn't end with the death of the last Apostle (John) and Jesus or an angel from heaven came back down to make "corrections" to what was always taught before. The only group I know that makes that claim are the Mormons, although the whole story is a little bit dubious. (An angel came down with some tablets with new information, but they couldn't read them so he gave them a stone to look through to translate. Then, they lost all of the tablets and stone.) And, they would have to show how Jesus delegated His authority to them to do so.

In the end, I think it boils down to authority. I know from my military days, that authority is given (delegated), never taken.

On the Issue of Church Founding and Heresy
Your argument suggests that any church founded after the original Church (assumed here to be the Roman Catholic Church) is heretical if it differs from the teachings passed down through the centuries. However, Scripture emphasizes that the standard of truth is based on adherence to the gospel as delivered by the apostles, not on institutional continuity or human authority.

Galatians 1:8-9 (NKJV):
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

Paul is clear that the authenticity of the gospel is not dependent on who preaches it (whether it be an apostle or even an angel), but whether it aligns with the message delivered by Christ through the apostles. If any church deviates from this gospel, it is not legitimate, regardless of its claim to historical continuity.

2. On the Finality of Divine Revelation
The Bible teaches that revelation through Jesus Christ and His apostles is complete, and no new revelation is needed after the apostolic era. This directly contradicts the idea that later church councils or additional sources of authority (such as papal decrees) can add to or alter the message of the gospel.

Jude 1:3 (NKJV):
"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

The phrase "once for all delivered" indicates that the faith has been fully revealed, and there is no ongoing process of new revelation after the apostles. This reinforces the finality of the apostolic teaching.

3. On Delegated Authority
The idea that Jesus delegated authority to the apostles and their successors is foundational to Catholicism, but the New Testament emphasizes that Christ alone is the head of the Church, and authority rests in Him. While there are leaders in the church (elders, overseers), they are servants of Christ, not ultimate authorities.

Colossians 1:18 (NKJV):
"And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

The authority of the church comes from Christ alone, and He continues to reign as the head of His church. There is no indication in Scripture that authority to add new teachings or revelations is passed down through a specific office or institution.

4. On Testing Teachings Against Scripture
The Bereans provide a biblical model for how all teachings should be tested against the Scriptures to determine their truth, regardless of who delivers the message.

Acts 17:11 (NKJV):
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."

This passage demonstrates that even the teachings of the apostles were tested against the Scriptures.

This suggests that the ultimate standard of authority is the Word of God, not church tradition or an ongoing magisterium.

5. On the Sufficiency of Scripture
Scripture is sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. There is no need for external sources or new revelations beyond what has already been revealed.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV):
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This passage shows that Scripture alone is enough to guide the believer in all matters of faith and practice. There is no need for further revelation or tradition beyond what the Bible teaches.

In conclusion, the argument that authority rests solely in the Roman Catholic Church's historical claims is not supported by Scripture. Instead, the Bible teaches that the gospel message delivered by Christ and His apostles is the unchanging standard by which all teachings and traditions must be judged. Any deviation from this, regardless of when it occurs, is to be rejected.

Based on the above I cannot agree with you.

J.

 

[Logikos]

Who are you?
Wm Lane Craig??
LOL

Let's make it simple. I'm not a philosopher....
Just because YOU KNOW something is going to happen....
does NOT mean you caused it to happen.

1. You offer your child ice-cream.
2. You know he likes vanilla.
3. He chooses vanilla ice-cream

Did you CAUSE him to choose vanilla?

I didn't say it causes it. That was not the argument. Did you read the argument? It doesn't say a single syllable about causing anything.

Then we have second causes.
Same difference......it's exactly the same.
The second cause argument that calvinists have is meaningless.
(because it still depends on the first cause).

TRUE!

But also irrelevant to the argument I presented.

But you say:
IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK OUT SO WELL AND GOD HAS TO CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE.

You mean God could make a mistake?

No, it isn't God's fault when people decide to rebel against Him. He simply responds to the circumstance as it arises and does so with wisdom, righteous and justice (same things).

Are you getting philosophy mixed up with theology??
You're stating that God could make a mistake.
This is not possible.
If God is PERFECT,,,,He cannot make a mistake.

It has nothing to do with making a mistake. God Himself told Saul that his throne could have been established forever and it would have been if Saul had not rebelled again what God told him to do.

I Samuel 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.”​

That's just one single example of God intending to do one thing but having to pivot and do something else because someone either rebelled or repented. The entire book of Jonah is 100% about an episode of the later. God told Nineveh that "In 40 days, Nineveh will be overthrown." but in the end, they weren't destroyed at all because they repented and instead God has to deal with His own profit who was angry WITH GOD and hadn't want to come to Nineveh in the first place precisely because he was afraid that God would do exactly this and show Nineveh mercy.

God told the Israelite that He would "without fail" drive out all of the opposing nations from before them on their way to possess the promised land but Israel rebelled and so God changed His mind and said, forget it! I said I would do it but now I'm not going to and am going to leave these people to be a thorn in your side.

​

Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:​

​

Just a few pages later....​

​

Judges 2:1 Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ” 4 So it was, when the Angel of the Lord spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.​

​

All of this makes perfect sense and, in fact, is entirely in keeping with the principle God taught through the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 18 (perhaps the single most important chapters in the entire bible, by the way)...

Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

You said: God does not know the unknowable.

God knows EVERYTHING.
Isn't that what omniscient means?
Do I really need to post some verses?

1 John 3:20
Job 37:16

(and many others).

There aren't many others and the ones you cited don't teach that God knows everything. In fact, there aren't any verses that do. You reading your doctrine into the verse, doesn't count. This is why proof-texting is foolishness in most cases. People have a hard time telling when they are making this mistake. Also, general statements, as in the case of I John 3:20 don't the point. You cannot rightly apply generally true statements to every particular. There's a reason why they call that a hasty generalization fallacy. In short, the word "all" is very nearly always hyperbole and we know this is the case in the I John verse because the same bible that has I John 3:20 in it also has Genesis 2:19 and 18:21.

Are you saying God exists INSIDE OF TIME??

I said what I meant. Did you read my post?

There is no such thing as "inside" of time. Time is an idea, not a place. The idea either applies or it does not.

What was present before the "big bang" or, the beginning of the universe?
NOTHING.
When the universe was created so was TIME.

That's your doctrine but it is not biblical nor is it rational. It is, in fact, self-contradictory. Read your own words....

"What was present BEFORE the "big bang" or, THE BEGINNING of the universe?"​

"WHEN the universe was created so was TIME.​

'BEFORE" "BEGINNING", "WHEN" are all words the presuppose the concept of time. Your attempt to use them outside of the context of time commits what is known as a stolen concept fallacy. In short, you can't even discuss the idea of "outside of time" without contradicting yourself. It is literally impossible to do. It is fundamentally and inescapably irrational. More importantly, it is entirely foreign to the bible. The only reason you believe it at all is because of Augustine importing pagan ideas from Greek philosophy into Christianity.

God cannot be a part of creation, which includes time.
Therefore, God is OUTSIDE OF TIME.

There isn't a single syllable of the bible that says that time is part of creation or that time will end. Indeed, quite the contrary, when this creation is ended and the New Heaven and New Earth are established, we will tell time by the fruits that are ripe on the Tree of Life. There's going to be twelve of them, each coming fruit one at a time each month.

If you make a watch...are you part of that watch?

Watches are not time.

It did, however, take time to make the watch.

Agreed. But it's not correct to say that God is NOT timeless, He certainly is.
and God DOES exist outside of time.

Saying it doesn't make it so, GG.

The bible doesn't teach it and that's a good thing too because it's demonstrable irrational.

Why then should I believe it?

As you must know by now...I don't care for Augustine,
I don't learn from Augustine.

Oh yes you did learn from Augustine!

Not directly, of course, but there isn't any question about it, if you believe that God is timeless, it is precisely and ONLY because of Augustine of Hippo. He is THE genesis of that teaching within the context of Christianity and he got it from Socrates, not scripture.

 

[Piers Plowman]

??
I would never say who is saved or who isn't.
That's God's job.


Why should I reconsider these questions?
What's wrong with them?

We were discussing whether or not Nestorius was correct.
You seem to believe that he was. My questions were meant to clarify since your position was not clear.

Here is what I posted:
You believe Jesus was a god-like man instead of Jesus being God?
And you deny the Holy Trinity?

What else do you disagree with regarding the Christian faith?

Fact is, the early church had all the correct doctrines before Nestorius, Augustine, or any other person that distorted what the early Fathers believed.

I happen to believe that Christianity holds specific doctrines that must be accepted in order to define a person as Christian.
My questions reflect this.

Was Jesus a god-man or was Jesus God?
Christianity believes Jesus is God.

Do you deny the Holy Trinity?
Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity.

Then I asked what other Christian beliefs you disagree with.

No reason to reconsider my questions.
They are proper and to the point.



Please post my attack on you.
I don't attack persons but try to have a decent conversation.
And I can't know why you brought up Ephesis. Was it in my post?
You could explain instead of feeling attacked.

Stop moving the goalposts. And please don't broad-stroke the faith of entire denominations, without even properly understanding what they actually believed in.
'I don't say who is saved or who isn't' card is old and overused, you know.

 

[Augustin56]

On the Issue of Church Founding and Heresy
Your argument suggests that any church founded after the original Church (assumed here to be the Roman Catholic Church) is heretical if it differs from the teachings passed down through the centuries. However, Scripture emphasizes that the standard of truth is based on adherence to the gospel as delivered by the apostles, not on institutional continuity or human authority.

Galatians 1:8-9 (NKJV):
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

Paul is clear that the authenticity of the gospel is not dependent on who preaches it (whether it be an apostle or even an angel), but whether it aligns with the message delivered by Christ through the apostles. If any church deviates from this gospel, it is not legitimate, regardless of its claim to historical continuity.

2. On the Finality of Divine Revelation
The Bible teaches that revelation through Jesus Christ and His apostles is complete, and no new revelation is needed after the apostolic era. This directly contradicts the idea that later church councils or additional sources of authority (such as papal decrees) can add to or alter the message of the gospel.

Jude 1:3 (NKJV):
"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

The phrase "once for all delivered" indicates that the faith has been fully revealed, and there is no ongoing process of new revelation after the apostles. This reinforces the finality of the apostolic teaching.

3. On Delegated Authority
The idea that Jesus delegated authority to the apostles and their successors is foundational to Catholicism, but the New Testament emphasizes that Christ alone is the head of the Church, and authority rests in Him. While there are leaders in the church (elders, overseers), they are servants of Christ, not ultimate authorities.

Colossians 1:18 (NKJV):
"And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

The authority of the church comes from Christ alone, and He continues to reign as the head of His church. There is no indication in Scripture that authority to add new teachings or revelations is passed down through a specific office or institution.

4. On Testing Teachings Against Scripture
The Bereans provide a biblical model for how all teachings should be tested against the Scriptures to determine their truth, regardless of who delivers the message.

Acts 17:11 (NKJV):
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."

This passage demonstrates that even the teachings of the apostles were tested against the Scriptures.

This suggests that the ultimate standard of authority is the Word of God, not church tradition or an ongoing magisterium.

5. On the Sufficiency of Scripture
Scripture is sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. There is no need for external sources or new revelations beyond what has already been revealed.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV):
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This passage shows that Scripture alone is enough to guide the believer in all matters of faith and practice. There is no need for further revelation or tradition beyond what the Bible teaches.

In conclusion, the argument that authority rests solely in the Roman Catholic Church's historical claims is not supported by Scripture. Instead, the Bible teaches that the gospel message delivered by Christ and His apostles is the unchanging standard by which all teachings and traditions must be judged. Any deviation from this, regardless of when it occurs, is to be rejected.

Based on the above I cannot agree with you.

J.

Johann, the Catholic Church (not the "Roman" Catholic Church - that's not its official title) is not a mere institution. It is a Divine entity, the Body of Christ, as St. Paul says. It has Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul. It is not a man-made organization by any stretch. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that contradict anything the Catholic Church teaches or vice versa. There is plenty that the Catholic Church teaches that contradicts man-made, personal interpretation of Scripture, however. Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture even hit at the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That is a man-made doctrine. The Catholic Church preceded and wrote the New Testament. The Bible (Old Testament + New Testament) was compiled by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century. Christ gave the entire Deposit of Faith (Divine Revelation) to the Apostles. The Apostles passed this on to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise down through the centuries for 2000 years now, Nowhere do we see anyone giving mere humans the authority to found a church apart from the one founded by Christ. Every other Church is a false religion, based on the principle of the integral good. The faith is an integral thing, i.e., all in one. If one error is introduced into the faith of a religion, then the religion becomes a false religion and cannot save. Every person who is saved is saved through the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Only Christ can save, and He does so through His mystical Body. Not from some man-made Church personally interpreting (misinterpreting) the Bible that the Catholic Church gave them. Every Protestant denomination has at least one heresy in its beliefs, if not more. I'm not trying to be mean; I'm telling you the truth straight up. Any Protestant who is saved is not saved through his/her denomination, but in spite of it, through the Catholic Church, through which Christ dispenses His grace.

 

[Ritajanice]

the Catholic Church (not the "Roman" Catholic Church - that's not its official title) is not a mere institution. It is a Divine entity, the Body of Christ, as St. Paul says. It has Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul. It is not a man-made organization by any stretch



Question from me..not sure this is on topic, apologies if it’s not...

If the Catholic Church is a divine entity , the Body Of Christ.

You say it’s not a man made organisation, so, did all those priests/ nuns abuse children, that we know to be true, ...was that all done under the authority of Jesus?

I mean isn’t the Catholic Church a divine entity, ?.....I’m not looking for any argument and I won’t take part in any of that, I’m just looking for answers about the Catholic Church being the truth?

Aren’t they supposed to be Born Of The Spirit, Born Of God’s seed? yet “ SOME” committed these perverted offences?

 

[face2face]

If Calvin had the interpretation intended by the authors, he would have remained Catholic and held to the interpretation intended by those authors. The fact that he changed the interpretation indicates that he was holding to his own personal interpretation, not that of the authors of Scripture. The Bible is Catholic book, and was so long, long before Protestantism arose.

And the house was vacated of true Saints long before it became fully sick to the head. Fear not, the Master of the House is coming to do some spring cleaning!

F2F

 

[Logikos]

Johann, the Catholic Church (not the "Roman" Catholic Church - that's not its official title) is not a mere institution. It is a Divine entity, the Body of Christ, as St. Paul says. It has Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul. It is not a man-made organization by any stretch. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that contradict anything the Catholic Church teaches or vice versa. There is plenty that the Catholic Church teaches that contradicts man-made, personal interpretation of Scripture, however. Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture even hit at the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That is a man-made doctrine. The Catholic Church preceded and wrote the New Testament. The Bible (Old Testament + New Testament) was compiled by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century. Christ gave the entire Deposit of Faith (Divine Revelation) to the Apostles. The Apostles passed this on to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise down through the centuries for 2000 years now, Nowhere do we see anyone giving mere humans the authority to found a church apart from the one founded by Christ. Every other Church is a false religion, based on the principle of the integral good. The faith is an integral thing, i.e., all in one. If one error is introduced into the faith of a religion, then the religion becomes a false religion and cannot save. Every person who is saved is saved through the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Only Christ can save, and He does so through His mystical Body. Not from some man-made Church personally interpreting (misinterpreting) the Bible that the Catholic Church gave them. Every Protestant denomination has at least one heresy in its beliefs, if not more. I'm not trying to be mean; I'm telling you the truth straight up. Any Protestant who is saved is not saved through his/her denomination, but in spite of it, through the Catholic Church, through which Christ dispenses His grace.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Logikos]

LOL The New Testament was written by Catholics. All the Apostles and the Early Church were Catholic.

The term "catholic", meaning "universal", had been used in reference to Christianity for a long time. The oldest known use of the term is in a letter written by Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans around 110 A.D., but the formal organization known today as the Catholic church which exercised liturgical and ecclesiastical authority over its members didn't exist prior to the 4th century when the slow necrotic deterioration of politics, (both among the leaders of the church and Roman authorities), finally resulted in things like the Edict of Milan, the first council of Nicaea and the rise of Papal authority in the late 4the and early 5th centuries.

In short, the "Catholic Church" is a political entity that became a malignant distortion of true biblical Christianity, growing like a cancer within the church only a couple of generations after the Apostles died. Once the printing press was invented, and God's Word could be read by people beyond those who sought to cling to the power the Catholic Church provided them, the true nature and extent of its gross perversion of God's truth became immediately apparent to all who would open their eyes to see it.

 

[Augustin56]

the Catholic Church (not the "Roman" Catholic Church - that's not its official title) is not a mere institution. It is a Divine entity, the Body of Christ, as St. Paul says. It has Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul. It is not a man-made organization by any stretch



Question from me..not sure this is on topic, apologies if it’s not...

If the Catholic Church is a divine entity , the Body Of Christ.

You say it’s not a man made organisation, so, did all those priests/ nuns abuse children, that we know to be true, ...was that all done under the authority of Jesus?

I mean isn’t the Catholic Church a divine entity, ?.....I’m not looking for any argument and I won’t take part in any of that, I’m just looking for answers about the Catholic Church being the truth?

Aren’t they supposed to be Born Of The Spirit, Born Of God’s seed? yet “ SOME” committed these perverted offences?

The Catholic Church is a Divine entity manned by humans. We need look no further than Judas Iscariot to see that Christ never guaranteed that everyone who was a member of the Church or the Church's heirarchy would be impeccable or sinless. As long as man lives in this life, he will be tempted. Some will fall. We can rest assured that Christ's promise that the "gates of hell will never prevail" (Matt. 16:18) over His Church is true. Jesus never lies. When Jesus returns for the second coming, His Church will still be standing.

 

[Augustin56]

The term "catholic", meaning "universal", had been used in reference to Christianity for a long time. The oldest known use of the term is in a letter written by Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans around 110 A.D., but the formal organization known today as the Catholic church which exercised liturgical and ecclesiastical authority over its members didn't exist prior to the 4th century when the slow necrotic deterioration of politics, (both among the leaders of the church and Roman authorities), finally resulted in things like the Edict of Milan, the first council of Nicaea and the rise of Papal authority in the late 4the and early 5th centuries.

In short, the "Catholic Church" is a political entity that became a malignant distortion of true biblical Christianity, growing like a cancer within the church only a couple of generations after the Apostles died. Once the printing press was invented, and God's Word could be read by people beyond those who sought to cling to the power the Catholic Church provided them, the true nature and extent of its gross perversion of God's truth became immediately apparent to all who would open their eyes to see it.

Nice try, but no cigar. The Catholic Church, unlike every Protestant denomination, is not a mere man-made organization. It is a living, Divine entity. I would venture to bet that you don't look anything like you did when you were an infant, do you? The same with the Church. Living things grow and mature.

Let me clue you in to something that you seem to not know. When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church as a Jew, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him (Acts 9:4), "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was actually doing, but, "...why are you persescuting Me?" Jesus identifies as one with His Church. His Church, the Catholic Church, is the only Church that can rightfully claim to be the original Church. God doesn't play shell games. Jesus promised, in Matt. 16:18, that "the gates of hell will never prevail against it" when referring to His Church. If He was lying, then we're all wasting our time. If He wasin't, then His Church, the Catholic Church, is still up an operating 2000 years later. When Jesus returns for the second coming, the Catholic Church will still be standing.

 

[Augustin56]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Agreed. Saying it also doesn't make it not so. So, what's your point?

 

[Augustin56]

And the house was vacated of true Saints long before it became fully sick to the head. Fear not, the Master of the House is coming to do some spring cleaning!

F2F

Is there a point somewhere in there? Try fleshing that out a little bit.

 

[Augustin56]

The term "catholic", meaning "universal", had been used in reference to Christianity for a long time. The oldest known use of the term is in a letter written by Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans around 110 A.D., but the formal organization known today as the Catholic church which exercised liturgical and ecclesiastical authority over its members didn't exist prior to the 4th century when the slow necrotic deterioration of politics, (both among the leaders of the church and Roman authorities), finally resulted in things like the Edict of Milan, the first council of Nicaea and the rise of Papal authority in the late 4the and early 5th centuries.

In short, the "Catholic Church" is a political entity that became a malignant distortion of true biblical Christianity, growing like a cancer within the church only a couple of generations after the Apostles died. Once the printing press was invented, and God's Word could be read by people beyond those who sought to cling to the power the Catholic Church provided them, the true nature and extent of its gross perversion of God's truth became immediately apparent to all who would open their eyes to see it.

Short side note. Christianity is not Bible-based. It's Church-based. The Catholic Church preceded the New Testament in writing. Christ didn't write a book to spread His truths. He taught orally. He founded a (ONE) Church in order to do so. It is this Church, the Catholic Church, that wrote the New Testament and compiled the Bible, not as a do-it-yourself kit, but as a tool of the Church. Jesus didn't come 16 centuries later and tell anyone they could go out and create 40,000+ new churches all based on someone's personal interpretation of a translation of a book His Church compiled, all with different and contradictory docrines, straying from the complete Deposit of Faith He gave His Church.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's a long post!

First, let's differentiate between what any particular Catholic or Catholics know and what the Church actually teaches.

Right. This is the point I was making with @Eternally Grateful .
I like to find out what a denomination teaches...not what the persons attending THINK it teaches.

It is the Church's teachings that are protected by Christ from error, not the individual Catholic's knowledge thereof. Throughout history, there have been ebbs and flows to the knowledge of the laity. Seems clear to me that we're in a down period at present,

I don't know if it's a downward spiral or if it's that catholics don't accept doctrine as much as they used to.
I don't know many persons that go to confession...
Don't know many persons that accept transubstantiation...
But look where I live...atheism is thriving.
The kids that go to catechism learn nothing at home...I'd say about 80% (from personal experience).
And what does an hour a week get?
Not much.

although I have to say I've noticed a market uptick in the young people lately in my parish.

Agreed. And the "new" believers want direction and a church that is stable.
(I'm waiting for Francis to disappear).

But, then again, I live in a large university parish that really has strong, effective programs. Confession is offered at regular times every day but Sunday (and Saturday's when there is a football game in town due to parking issues). Every time I've been, there have been a lot of students going to Confession. We also have Adoration each week and that is very well attended, as is daily Mass. Sunday night Mass is usually geared for the students and after Mass, there is pizza available ($3 for alll you can eat, but free if it's your first time). There are retreats for the students, etc. We have seen several vocations come out of this parish in the last few years, too. Sunday Mass is usually packed, except in the Summer when most of the students are gone. But overall, the students are knowledgeable and seem to have a very strong faith. So, the pastor is certainly doing something right.

I'm so jealous. I'm serious.

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to Hebrews? (When I clicked reply, it only showed your part and I can't find my original post.)

I think the other member said that the CC believes it was chosen by God.
I said that the Hebrews were chosen by God.
I'm not sure if Jesus meant for Judaism to change...at some point, in any case, He realized that something new would have to happen.
The CC came out of that. Does this mean that God CHOSE the CC?

From a logical standpoint, if someone founds a church or denomination 16 centuries after the original Church founded by Christ, and teaches anything different, then the difference is heresy. OR, they would have to show how Divine Revelation didn't end with the death of the last Apostle (John) and Jesus or an angel from heaven came back down to make "corrections" to what was always taught before.

I agree to a certain point.
But what about the ideas the CC ADDED to the begininng teachings and did go awry, I'd say.
Everything with Luther began due to indulgences, which I don't see mentioned in the ECFs.
Some kind of reformation was needed due to the great power the church had even in the political arena.
I don't know...,we say nothing happens if God does not want it to, so I don't know what to make of all this.

The only group I know that makes that claim are the Mormons, although the whole story is a little bit dubious. (An angel came down with some tablets with new information, but they couldn't read them so he gave them a stone to look through to translate. Then, they lost all of the tablets and stone.) And, they would have to show how Jesus delegated His authority to them to do so.

In the end, I think it boils down to authority. I know from my military days, that authority is given (delegated), never taken.

Of course. I'm going to link an interesting discussion between Joe Heschmeyer and Gavin Ortland....

 

[Augustin56]

Right. This is the point I was making with @Eternally Grateful .
I like to find out what a denomination teaches...not what the persons attending THINK it teaches.


I don't know if it's a downward spiral or if it's that catholics don't accept doctrine as much as they used to.
I don't know many persons that go to confession...
Don't know many persons that accept transubstantiation...
But look where I live...atheism is thriving.
The kids that go to catechism learn nothing at home...I'd say about 80% (from personal experience).
And what does an hour a week get?
Not much.

Agreed. And the "new" believers want direction and a church that is stable.
(I'm waiting for Francis to disappear).


I'm so jealous. I'm serious.

I think the other member said that the CC believes it was chosen by God.
I said that the Hebrews were chosen by God.
I'm not sure if Jesus meant for Judaism to change...at some point, in any case, He realized that something new would have to happen.
The CC came out of that. Does this mean that God CHOSE the CC?

I agree to a certain point.
But what about the ideas the CC ADDED to the begininng teachings and did go awry, I'd say.
Everything with Luther began due to indulgences, which I don't see mentioned in the ECFs.
Some kind of reformation was needed due to the great power the church had even in the political arena.
I don't know...,we say nothing happens if God does not want it to, so I don't know what to make of all this.

Of course. I'm going to link an interesting discussion between Joe Heschmeyer and Gavin Ortland....

The students aren't getting taught at home because the parents weren't taught either. Nimo dat quod non habet. We cannot give what we do not have. Although, with the advent of the Internet, I don't think that at any time in history has mankind had access to so much of the Church's teaching, although one must be careful which sources one uses. Parents could do some self-study and catch up, and I know some who have. The old joke was that CCD class stands for Color, Cut, and Draw rather than Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. An over emphasis on kenetic activity, and an assumption that the children couldn't handle the fullness of the faith taught straight up. Bad assumption, especially if you've ever seen these little ones play complicated video games. They're quite capable of understanding.

The Jews were chosen by God and are still His "chosen people." The issue with regard to indulgences has long been misunderstood. Indulgences are still a valid teaching of the Church. I'll add a short video by Fr. Mike that should clear up some of the issues here:

Here's another very interesting video you might enjoy. It's a testimony by a former atheist, Roy Shoeman. He’s a Harvard professor who was raised Jewish by Jewish parents who escaped the Nazi Holocaust of WWII, came to the U.S. and had him. He went to M.I.T., then Harvard, where he became an atheist and a professor. But, he always wondered that if there was no God, what was the meaning of life. One day, without warning, the curtain between heaven and earth was lifted and he saw both heaven and God. Here is his story:

I'm not sure what you mean by the Church added to the beginning teachings, etc. Doctrine doesn't change, and no new doctrines have been added since the beginning. Some doctrines had to be formally declared, however, which is an entirely different thing. And, our understanding of docrine develops over time, deepening our understanding. But the Catholic Church has never changed any doctrines, either. For example, the Church has never said, "Wait, there are not three Divine Persons in the Trinity, there are four." Or anything like that.

The Church is in the world and must deal with the world. Christ didn't promise His protection to the Church's administrative activities or activities within the world, though. We have had many scandalous individuals in the heirarchy from the beginning (Judas betrayed Jesus; Peter denied Him three times; the rest, except for John, deserted Him during His passion, etc.). Christ only promised that the Church would never teach doctrinal error. That especially applies to the Pope, which is where we get the charism of infallibility. The Pope will never be allowed to declare an erroneous doctrine.

Now I'll go watch the video.