If Perchance Catholicism Is Mistaken
- Thread starter Webers.Home
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hello again Dan, that's not true, for this Protestant anyway, or for any others I know (well, except for a few of the "solo" Christians out here in online Christendom, I guess). This super-minority opinion has nothing to do with the historic Protestant faith, which certainly includes the Reformed (and most often highly misunderstood) doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.
That sounds about right. Of course, this approach becomes problematic since we know that Popes and Councils have disagreed with each other (the Filioque comes quickly to mind, as does the extent of Adam's fall as described and anathematized by Orange and Trent), and they (Popes/Councils) have both disagreed with some of the clear, didactic teaching of the Bible, wherever certain presuppositions or traditions required them to so.
Actually, I believe it's St. John (not Jesus) who mentions that if everything that Jesus did had been written down, the world itself would not be big enough to contain all the books that would need to be written.*
*(all that in just three short years of Jesus' ministry .. WOW, what an AMAZING thing it must have been to witness it all .. AND to walk with Him, of course .. personally
).That said, I believe that the Bible contains every jot and tittle that God intended it to have, no more and no less. Most importantly, everything that we need to know about ourselves and about God to be saved, and to live Christian life adequately before Him, is in there .. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Finally, I have no problem with RCC "Traditions", unless those traditional teachings contradict what the Bible teaches us, of course, just like Jesus pointed out for us that the Jewish oral traditions often did.
You might ask someone from the EOC that very same question, since they use a different Bible than RC's do! That said, we use the same tests today that those in the late 4th (RCC) and then the late 7th (EOC) centuries used. Of course, it's always important to remember that the Apostles told us which books were Scripture as they were being written, which is why the vast majority of the NT Canon was already known by the early to mid-2nd century.
I've only touched on some of this, but I think I'll stop anyway because this is already becoming too long for a single post, IMHO. So I'll wait for your reply before I continue (and then hopefully get back to you a little more quickly than I did last time
)God bless you!
~Deut
Yes it is a must to believe even if a thing is proven false (like limbo one of the many) or their foundation drops out .
Sola scriptura, all things written in the law and the prophets makes the law of the fathers Catholic fathers as oral traditions of the fathers without effect . No man can serve two masters in that way.
In that portion of scripture (John 21) Jesus is teaching the opposite as to what Catholicism puts their hope in, that God is still bringing new revelation that they call private revelations .He was rebuking Peter for trying to add by promoting a lie as a oral tradition of the fathers. Jesus said if every time he had to work to expose the lies of the oral traditions of men . . . . then the world would not be able to contains the books.
It was not a blank check. . fill in with mystics false prophets as it goes along
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Their hope of violating the warning not to add to the perfect which is sealed with 7 seals is seen as defined by Pope Urban
The call of Catholicism. Just believe Queen Mary she will be happy you have violated the warning not to add or subtract from the perfect. . . keep those air ways open .
In other words. . . we will make it up as time goes forward. We will not serve a outdated book. Ancient history
I remember a catholic friend talk about oral tradition, they believe Jesus never ask or instruct to write His teaching.
What a wrong to write His teaching. ?
With Oral tradition is easier to lie, that is what they intend to do.
They going to say let pray to Mary, that is oral tradition, no document to backup
They first Pope, Peter also write his teaching. She also write her catechism.
Proof catholic is liar.
What a wrong to write His teaching. ?
With Oral tradition is easier to lie, that is what they intend to do.
They going to say let pray to Mary, that is oral tradition, no document to backup
They first Pope, Peter also write his teaching. She also write her catechism.
Proof catholic is liar.
Yes, I would agree with that.
And would a Muslim have to say the same thing in order to be worshipping a different God?
Yes, if you believe in a different God than the Messiah preached to Israel, then you are believing in a different God. I agree with that.
What things can you believe about God that make it a different God?
For example
Ephesians 1: 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.
If a person says that they believe in the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, but they say that this God is not the father of Jesus Christ, are they actually believing in the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob?
Or maybe another example, taking it out of the Muslim and Jew situation.
Suppose a person says they believe in the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, and that they believe but this God also incarnated himself as Krishna to people in India. is that person still believing in the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob?
Can the person who says their God is not the father of Jesus, or their God is also Krishna, can that person still be worshiping the same God as Christians, just misinformed about him?
Maybe the new technology makes a difference, maybe not. It will be interesting to see what happens!
Yes, I think I follow what you're saying.
And again, I mean to say this gently, but as an observation, I believe you are setting up those general questions to be skewed towards including Jews and excluding Muslims.
Suppose we asked the general question, do you believe in only one God who made everything? Would Muslims say yes to that?
Well, first off, I suspect that lumen gentium was originally written in Latin. And the Latin version is probably the official version. What we have been reading is an English translation. Probably an approved translation, but a translation none the less. So we're already losing something.
My best guess is that what the bishops were trying to say there is that salvation is available to Muslims who move forward from their belief in a single universal God to acceptance of the teachings of the body of Christ, the church.
Yes, Matthew was an apostle, one of the twelve.
But, the Matthew who was an apostle, is that the same person who wrote the document we call Matthew?
Honestly, at this point appearances are your being deliberate in your ignorance, and not really ignorant..
This is a VERY important topic for the very reason that people's salvation is at stake..
When you look at Jews and tell them you worship a different God than they do they believe you and shut their ears to the Truth.
This is wrong to do. This is a crime against God, because we worship the same God, and if we aren't it's us who is wrong.
If we can't articulate our faith truthfully to the lost, we have no business speaking to the lost at all.
I'll to respond to you later.
What do you mean by single universal God.
Why do you believe that lumen gentium in latin different from English version, can you proof it?
Well, the thing I was talking about was your idea that "the Apostles knew which books & letters contained God's inspired/breathed words back in the 1st century when they were written"Hi Dan, I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you (I see that I missed more than one of your replies to me).
It's true that the Septuagint 'typically' contains several of the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books, books that most of our Protestant Bibles do not contain today. This is not always true however, because a few of the copies (codexes) of the Septuagint contain the 39 Books of the OT only.
I believe the bigger issue is found with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles however, because unlike the Septuagint and modern Protestant Bibles, they 1. ~always~ include the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books but 2. ~never~ include the exact same list of Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books that we find in the Septuagint codexes that contain those books.
Another problem with choosing to regard the Apocryphal books as Deuterocanonical books instead is the fact that 1. they were well-known to both the Lord and to the Apostles but 2. unlike the OT, neither the Lord nor the Apostles quoted the Apocryphal books in the NT saying of them (for instance), "it is written", not even once!
~Deut
I had mentioned the Muratorian Fragment in my post. Are you familiar with it? it seems to be a description of what books were being used by a church about 150 ad in Italy. They are using only some of the books that we have today in the New testament, and they were also using the book of wisdom, not found in Protestant old testaments today.
If the apostles knew which books were Canon, and communicated that tradition, why is this early church using a different list than we do today?
Well, it would be the audience that would consider something reliable or not reliable that would determine whether something would be quoted or not.Hi again Dan, that seems to make sense Biblically .. cf 1 Corinthians 9:20-22.
Of course, it seems to me that this adds to the case ~against~ using the Apocryphal books as part of the regula fidei, because if both Jesus' and Paul's audiences considered the Apocryphal books to be "reliable", then why didn't they quote from them in the NT (like they so often chose to do with the OT)
Thanks!
~Deut
Which brings up an interesting situation, Jude quotes The book of Enoch, I believe.
Rigged data, that's always a problem! And when talking about religions, always an issue of how to separate the serious practitioners from the people in name only!the map does show that number but still the some data could of been rigged, and Roman isn’t the only Catholics
Lots of great points there! I'm going to use several posts to respond to different parts, because I'm on a cell phone, and the screen is pretty small, so hard to keep track of everything.Hello again Dan, that's not true, for this Protestant anyway, or for any others I know (well, except for a few of the "solo" Christians out here in online Christendom, I guess). This super-minority opinion has nothing to do with the historic Protestant faith, which certainly includes the Reformed (and most often highly misunderstood) doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.
That sounds about right. Of course, this approach becomes problematic since we know that Popes and Councils have disagreed with each other (the Filioque comes quickly to mind, as does the extent of Adam's fall as described and anathematized by Orange and Trent), and they (Popes/Councils) have both disagreed with some of the clear, didactic teaching of the Bible, wherever certain presuppositions or traditions required them to so.
Actually, I believe it's St. John (not Jesus) who mentions that if everything that Jesus did had been written down, the world itself would not be big enough to contain all the books that would need to be written.*
*(all that in just three short years of Jesus' ministry .. WOW, what an AMAZING thing it must have been to witness it all .. AND to walk with Him, of course .. personally
That said, I believe that the Bible contains every jot and tittle that God intended it to have, no more and no less. Most importantly, everything that we need to know about ourselves and about God to be saved, and to live Christian life adequately before Him, is in there .. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Finally, I have no problem with RCC "Traditions", unless those traditional teachings contradict what the Bible teaches us, of course, just like Jesus pointed out for us that the Jewish oral traditions often did.
You might ask someone from the EOC that very same question, since they use a different Bible than RC's do! That said, we use the same tests today that those in the late 4th (RCC) and then the late 7th (EOC) centuries used. Of course, it's always important to remember that the Apostles told us which books were Scripture as they were being written, which is why the vast majority of the NT Canon was already known by the early to mid-2nd century.
I've only touched on some of this, but I think I'll stop anyway because this is already becoming too long for a single post, IMHO. So I'll wait for your reply before I continue (and then hopefully get back to you a little more quickly than I did last time
God bless you!
~Deut
Jesus said
John 16: 12. "I have yet many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now.
When were his disciples able to Bear them, the other things he wanted to tell them? Was it in maybe 90 ad when maybe the book we call Revelation was written? Or if we give a later date to 2nd and 3rd John, later than that? Or some later date even than that?
So regarding whether Protestants read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it says.Hello again Dan, that's not true, for this Protestant anyway, or for any others I know (well, except for a few of the "solo" Christians out here in online Christendom, I guess). This super-minority opinion has nothing to do with the historic Protestant faith, which certainly includes the Reformed (and most often highly misunderstood) doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.
That sounds about right. Of course, this approach becomes problematic since we know that Popes and Councils have disagreed with each other (the Filioque comes quickly to mind, as does the extent of Adam's fall as described and anathematized by Orange and Trent), and they (Popes/Councils) have both disagreed with some of the clear, didactic teaching of the Bible, wherever certain presuppositions or traditions required them to so.
Actually, I believe it's St. John (not Jesus) who mentions that if everything that Jesus did had been written down, the world itself would not be big enough to contain all the books that would need to be written.*
*(all that in just three short years of Jesus' ministry .. WOW, what an AMAZING thing it must have been to witness it all .. AND to walk with Him, of course .. personally
That said, I believe that the Bible contains every jot and tittle that God intended it to have, no more and no less. Most importantly, everything that we need to know about ourselves and about God to be saved, and to live Christian life adequately before Him, is in there .. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Finally, I have no problem with RCC "Traditions", unless those traditional teachings contradict what the Bible teaches us, of course, just like Jesus pointed out for us that the Jewish oral traditions often did.
You might ask someone from the EOC that very same question, since they use a different Bible than RC's do! That said, we use the same tests today that those in the late 4th (RCC) and then the late 7th (EOC) centuries used. Of course, it's always important to remember that the Apostles told us which books were Scripture as they were being written, which is why the vast majority of the NT Canon was already known by the early to mid-2nd century.
I've only touched on some of this, but I think I'll stop anyway because this is already becoming too long for a single post, IMHO. So I'll wait for your reply before I continue (and then hopefully get back to you a little more quickly than I did last time
God bless you!
~Deut
So some ideas to talk about
There are many Protestant traditions. The one that you have picked, did you pick it because in your opinion it was the most biblical?
Let's take baptism. There are many different views on it, about how to do it, when it is to be done, and what it does.
The views that you have on baptism, do you have them because the tradition you are part of says to believe that? or do you feel that the views you have are the most biblical?
It is extremely likely that whatever views you have on baptism, there are other people who are fully convinced that the Bible teaches something different. What should those people do? conform to the tradition you have chosen because you have chosen it? or go with the tradition that they feel more closely aligns with what they understand the Bible to be saying?
I agree to that there are issues with saying that when the whole church gathers in a council, that the outcome is guaranteed to be free from error by the holy Spirit.Hello again Dan, that's not true, for this Protestant anyway, or for any others I know (well, except for a few of the "solo" Christians out here in online Christendom, I guess). This super-minority opinion has nothing to do with the historic Protestant faith, which certainly includes the Reformed (and most often highly misunderstood) doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.
That sounds about right. Of course, this approach becomes problematic since we know that Popes and Councils have disagreed with each other (the Filioque comes quickly to mind, as does the extent of Adam's fall as described and anathematized by Orange and Trent), and they (Popes/Councils) have both disagreed with some of the clear, didactic teaching of the Bible, wherever certain presuppositions or traditions required them to so.
Actually, I believe it's St. John (not Jesus) who mentions that if everything that Jesus did had been written down, the world itself would not be big enough to contain all the books that would need to be written.*
*(all that in just three short years of Jesus' ministry .. WOW, what an AMAZING thing it must have been to witness it all .. AND to walk with Him, of course .. personally
That said, I believe that the Bible contains every jot and tittle that God intended it to have, no more and no less. Most importantly, everything that we need to know about ourselves and about God to be saved, and to live Christian life adequately before Him, is in there .. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Finally, I have no problem with RCC "Traditions", unless those traditional teachings contradict what the Bible teaches us, of course, just like Jesus pointed out for us that the Jewish oral traditions often did.
You might ask someone from the EOC that very same question, since they use a different Bible than RC's do! That said, we use the same tests today that those in the late 4th (RCC) and then the late 7th (EOC) centuries used. Of course, it's always important to remember that the Apostles told us which books were Scripture as they were being written, which is why the vast majority of the NT Canon was already known by the early to mid-2nd century.
I've only touched on some of this, but I think I'll stop anyway because this is already becoming too long for a single post, IMHO. So I'll wait for your reply before I continue (and then hopefully get back to you a little more quickly than I did last time
God bless you!
~Deut
I think the idea is based on the first council in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15. I think it's interesting that when there was a serious dispute in the church, the advice that the apostles gave to people was not everyone read the scriptures and decide for yourselves, but that the apostles and elders gather together to make a decision for everyone.
I'm not completely sure, but I think from the Catholic point of view the office of apostle did not stop with the death of the last one of the 12.
So just using whole church councils, are there actual contradictions? I'm not sure, I would be interested to find out!
The world has been under one world government, one world religion. . . the moment God corrupted it. . We walk by faith. Satan is still the god of this world ruling in high places. Our focus is on the unseen .Drawing maps would seem to distract from getting the gospel out .
Then it becomes flesh and blood verses flesh and blood, nation against nation, family against family or denomination against denomination. That's not the kind of division as meant to be between us .
2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight