Support NeoGAF

[TaeOH]

Yeah, she was.

Replace God with any other dude, keep everything else the same.

No she wasn't as God did not come to her like some Greek god and do the nasty.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Yes we can denounce it as it is not commanded of us today. So it falls under the objective moral law and considered murder. The passage in the old testament are commands for Israel and were for the purpose keeping them separate or holy. While we can judge what we see as murder today as immoral(which is what I think the others may be saying), they are made moral in that circumstance by God's direct command.

So the denouncement would therefore be based upon it not currently being God's command, rather than a general moral point right?

 

[TaeOH]

So the denouncement would therefore be based upon it not currently being God's command, rather than a general moral point right?

I don't think I understand the question.

 

[Count Dookkake]

No she wasn't as God did not come to her like some Greek god and do the nasty.

The description can be read a couple ways.

All I know is that he came over her and babby was formed.

Joseph is a cuckold.

 

[TaeOH]

The description can be read a couple ways.

All I know is that he came over her and babby was formed.

Joseph is a cuckold.

So sex on your mind a lot?

 

[Count Dookkake]

So sex on your mind a lot?

I am just as god made me.

 

[JGS]

So the denouncement would therefore be based upon it not currently being God's command, rather than a general moral point right?

No, the command is exactly the same.

Apostasy is not allowed.
The penalty for not worshipping God is death
The one decided the penalty was God
God will use others to carry out his wishes (Jesus and his heavenly army)
The morality of it remains sound

The primary differences are the penalty is not immediate thanks to the Ransom and humans are in no way involved in the execution of the judgement.

 

[TaeOH]

No, the command is exactly the same.

Apostasy is not allowed.
The penalty for not worshipping God is death
The one decided the penalty was God
God will use others to carry out his wishes (Jesus and his heavenly army)
The morality of it remains sound

The primary differences are the penalty is not immediate thanks to the Ransom and humans are in no way involved in the execution of the judgement.

I missed your last post. Well done. I was not seeing the picture OttomanScribe was painting, so I did not understand the question as I kept seeing it as someone arbitrarily acting on the command today.

 

[TaeOH]

I am just as god made me.

It is a good thing you can depend on grace.

 

[TaeOH]

Q: Is there a heaven?

Q: Why do you ask?

 

[bonesmccoy]

I had to look Imago Dei up. I think it means more to you metaphysically than what I found. Would you mind explaining your view on what part of us is made in the image of God?

What part? That's not how I would begin to approach Imago Dei. Though I guess you could say that the soul, the intellect (body), are the 'parts' that are made in God's image. Actions against these violate this understanding, for it reduces the person into something less than what he was created to be.

That's a pretty awful explanation, but I'm no theologian and its been ages since I have given serious thought to this concept. Yet having said that, this understanding of humans as being made in Imago Dei directed me to adopt consistent life ethics as normative. I guess right now its something that I 'feel' more than something I can properly explain.

 

[TaeOH]

What part? That's not how I would begin to approach Imago Dei. Though I guess you could say that the soul, the intellect (body), are the 'parts' that are made in God's image. Actions against these violate this understanding, for it reduces the person into something less than what he was created to be.

That's a pretty awful explanation, but I'm no theologian and its been ages since I have given serious thought to this concept. Yet having said that, this understanding of humans as being made in Imago Dei directed me to adopt consistent life ethics as normative. I guess right now its something that I 'feel' more than something I can properly explain.

Well Thank you for trying to explain. Catholicism fascinates me right now, so when you used the Latin I wondered how much a part of your theology was the image of God. I like your description. I think I have had a similar view all my life but have expressed it differently. My viewpoint relates to the definition of what Sin is, mainly that it was not something we were created for and therefore does not lead to happiness so this is why it is wrong or sin.

 

[legend166]

I feel like I should explain my opposition to the Catholic Church, as I think I've got a different opinion on it to the majority in here.

Aside from several major theological differences (confession, great emphasis on works, position of Mary, Mass, etc), it is the position of the church itself that I just can't reconcile to Biblical theology. The Roman Catholic Church is placed on such a pedestal by Catholics, that it's basically as important as Christ himself. In fact, they refer to the organisation as 'the Body of Christ' (and I understand the scriptural reference here).

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church has proven to be incredibly corrupt throughout its entire history. From the Crusades and actively trying to stop the common man from being able to read The Bible, all the way to turning a blind eye to Nazism and covering up pedophilia among priests. Now that, on its own, is not unique to the Catholic Church. Horrible things have been done in the name in Protestantism. But I don't put all that great importance on human organisations. We are all sinners. But how can anyone say "I have faith in this church and its traditions"? It truly baffles me. I'd honestly like a Catholic to be able to explain it, because I just don't get it.

 

[TaeOH]

I feel like I should explain my opposition to the Catholic Church, as I think I've got a different opinion on it to the majority in here.

Aside from several major theological differences (confession, great emphasis on works, position of Mary, Mass, etc), it is the position of the church itself that I just can't reconcile to Biblical theology. The Roman Catholic Church is placed on such a pedestal by Catholics, that it's basically as important as Christ himself. In fact, they refer to the organisation as 'the Body of Christ' (and I understand the scriptural reference here).

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church has proven to be incredibly corrupt throughout its entire history. From the Crusades and actively trying to stop the common man from being able to read The Bible, all the way to turning a blind eye to Nazism and covering up pedophilia among priests. Now that, on its own, is not unique to the Catholic Church. Horrible things have been done in the name in Protestantism. But I don't put all that great importance on human organisations. We are all sinners. But how can anyone say "I have faith in this church and its traditions"? It truly baffles me. I'd honestly like a Catholic to be able to explain it, because I just don't get it.

But every church has its problems, as it is man who leads them. As you said, it is not isolated in the Catholic church. What I have learned recently, something that may have been taught to me in the past but I just now understand, is that the Catholic church holds church tradition in as high a regard as the word itself. There is something to be said for this since we are so far away from the 1st century. Using church tradition to help interpret the word is not a bad thing as it can help with passages whose context may be lost on contemporary minds.

I agree that the Catholic church has had more issues than most, but I think that is because they have had more power than most and power corrupts. But there is a lot of beauty in the Catholic church, beauty in its expression of Christ. I am trying to no longer throw out the baby with the bath water. Protestantism and Catholicism is not as far a part as it once was in the more corrupt middle ages.

Now this is not to say that I agree with all of their theology. As I posted earlier, how they define justification and how it relates to grace and sanctification I do not agree with, but I do see their interpretation as consistent.

 

[soul creator]

Q: Why do you ask?

Because I'm curious how one squares "if we didn't have free will to do evil, we wouldn't exist!" with a supposed place people want to go where no evil exists

 

[JGS]

Because I'm curious how one squares "if we didn't have free will to do evil, we wouldn't exist!" with a supposed place people want to go where no evil exists

The phrase seems flawed to me so not a direct answer.

I think one aspect that's already missed is the whole idea of being tested. The only reason why evil is allowed to exist is because the challenge goes that the world & heaven is better off with it existing, not that it has to exist.

Heaven had plenty of evil in it since that's where Satan and the demons resided too. However, for ones gaining salvation, they have effectively been tested as to ther capacity to commit evil. They don't want to. That's the reason they would be there.

Their real reward is the confidence God has that they won't commit evil acts. There's not even an option remotely hinted at that they would slip back to evil ways unl;ike the conditions of those living on Earth.

However, if there was a slight possibility of it, it would be an easy thing to remove.

 

[Slo]

Because I'm curious how one squares "if we didn't have free will to do evil, we wouldn't exist!" with a supposed place people want to go where no evil exists

So...if you go to heaven you cease to exits? Mindblown.gif.

 

[Chaplain]

Man, the bible is long, wish they could have done a bullet pointed slideshow. Could've cleared things up.

Here are videos that go through every book of the Bible in great detail (including power-point slides):

Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 01 - Introduction
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 02 - Creation And The Fall of Man
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 03 - The Pre-historical Period
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 04 - The Patriarchs
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 05 - The Birth Of The Nation
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 06 - In The Land
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 07 - The Monarchy
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 08 - The Poetical Books
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 09 - The Book Of Daniel
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 10 - Post-Exile History
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 11 - The Major Prophets
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 12 - The Minor Prophets
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 13 - How Sure Can We Be
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 14 - The New Testament
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 15 - The Gospels
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 16 - The Last Week
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 17 - The Book Of Acts
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 18 - Romans
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 19 - The Church Epistles
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 20 - The Hebrew Christian Epistles
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 21 - Eschatologicial Summary
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 22 - Revelation 1-3
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 23 - Revelation 4-22
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 24 - Conclusion

 

[Chaplain]

I know some Christians who uphold the sabbath and only eat Kosher.

That is because they are ignoring what scripture says in the NT:

Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord’s help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval.

In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable.Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God.

Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, all foods are acceptable, but it is wrong to eat something if it makes another person stumble.

So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality. Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it.

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

 

[OttomanScribe]

That is because they are ignoring what scripture says in the NT:

They say the same thing about you. I am not your co-religionist so you can keep your schisms to yourself

 

[JGS]

They are allowed to be kosher, have sabbath, & be circumcised but should not require it of others since they are not essential to Doctrine.

 

[Chaplain]

They say the same thing about you. I am not your co-religionist so you can keep your schisms to yourself

Jesus said, “Don’t you understand either?” he asked. “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you? Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

The New Testament clearly states we can take any day off as our Sabbath and all food is acceptable. They can say what ever they want about me, but they would have no NT scriptural support that we have to do these things.

 

[TaeOH]

They are allowed to be kosher, have sabbath, & be circumcised but should not require it of others since they are not essential to Doctrine.

Yes. They are not wrong in expressing their submission to God in this way. We have freedom in Christ.

 

[phisheep]

I feel like I should explain my opposition to the Catholic Church, as I think I've got a different opinion on it to the majority in here.

I'll bite.

Aside from several major theological differences (confession, great emphasis on works, position of Mary, Mass, etc), it is the position of the church itself that I just can't reconcile to Biblical theology.

Sure, there are theological differences. Just one that I'd like to pick up on though. I keep hearing about this great emphasis on works/justification by works stuff about the Catholic Church, and it isn't something I recognise except as an accusation thrown by Protestants as opposed to, I assume, justification by faith.

In fact I don't recall in the Catholic Church anyone ever saying to me or even hinting that we can justify ourselves to God in any way at all.

Sure, we are taught that what we do and how we behave is important. Of course it is. Love thy neighbour and all that. But as I remember it, that's part of a way of life, not an attempt at justification.

The Roman Catholic Church is placed on such a pedestal by Catholics, that it's basically as important as Christ himself. In fact, they refer to the organisation as 'the Body of Christ' (and I understand the scriptural reference here).

I wouldn't go that far. Not at all. Because it just isn't "basically as important as Christ himself" - nowhere near. Wherever did you get that idea?

I suspect there's a lot of history behind this notion. Remember that except for a few schisms, Catholicism was for centuries synonymous with Christianity - still is in some parts of the world - so there is bound to be some conflation of the two. True, the Church is respected - hardly surprising for the oldest global institution around - and indeed loved, but in the same sort of way you love whatever community you are part of, faults and all. But if that's a pedastel, then it isn't an enormously high one. And it pales into insignificance compared with, say, the idolatry accorded to the American Constitution in some quarters.

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church has proven to be incredibly corrupt throughout its entire history. From the Crusades and actively trying to stop the common man from being able to read The Bible, all the way to turning a blind eye to Nazism and covering up pedophilia among priests. Now that, on its own, is not unique to the Catholic Church. Horrible things have been done in the name in Protestantism. But I don't put all that great importance on human organisations. We are all sinners. But how can anyone say "I have faith in this church and its traditions"? It truly baffles me. I'd honestly like a Catholic to be able to explain it, because I just don't get it.

Just to put this into context it's worth explaining a bit about the sort of organisation the Catholic Church is, because this sometimes causes confusion. It isn't anywhere near as monolithic as outsiders often suppose and certainly isn't the sort of command-and-control organisation that we're accustomed to seeing in modern global organisations. It is a much older sort of organisation. More distributed, with little in the way of formal reporting, monitoring and edicts and strategies an so on. On most things the buck stops with the Bishop, and the relatioship between the Bishops and the cardinals/papacy/curia and so on is far more a pastoral one than a managerial one.

Typically you'll get a letter every six months rather than 20 emails a day. Altogether different.

Also, history is history and now is now. The Church is a whole lot different since the Second Vatican Council for example, and nowhere near the polical beast that is was in mediaeval times. Like the prodigal son, the excesses of its past are no reason to love it the less now.

Back on point:

The crusades: not so much corruption as exercising political power - those days are long gone. Besides, this was largely exercised through the influence of the Vatican on the rulers of sovereign states and not through the Church heirarchy. Had very little impact on the day-to-day pastoral activities of the Church.

Actively trying to stop the common man reading the Bible: not in my (longish) lifetime. Mind you, it is an example of how slow the Church can be to change - in this case after the invention of printing. Quite the contrary, I was actively encouraged to read the Bible.

Turning a blind eye to Nazism: probably just not true - see the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge of 1937 for example. Mind you, there wasn't a great deal the Church could actually do about it by then - and really you can't have it both ways in condemning the Church for acting in the Crusades and condemning it for not acting in WWII.

Covering up of paedophila etc: this largely comes down to the nature of the organisation. It isn't a huge surprise that there are paedophlie priests - the Church attracts paedophiles in the same way that schools do - but we don't blame the education system for that. But trouble was that the Bishops, working largely in isolation, had no real view of the scale of the problem - and the centre had no real view there was a significant problem at all until quite recently when Cardinal Ratzinger got the right level of controls in place. Possibly organisational incompetence - coupled with local sweeping things under the carpet - rather than corruption.

So I don't think you've made out the case for corruption sufficiently well either.

 

[Dunk#7]

My issues with the Catholic church (Doctrinal Issues)

1. Many Catholic churches tend to make their members feel as if they cannot understand the scripture for themselves. This is either insinuated or directly mentioned. They set up a structure that makes members feel that the priest is the only one who understand the scriptures and he must be the one to inform the members about what the Bible has to say. This is very dangerous in that the priest could manipulate the members very easily since his messages are not cross checked by the members using the Bible.

2. The Catholic church also tends to use the priest as a mediator between God and man. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. The Bible teaches that all believers are made priests and therefore do not need an earthly mediator.

Hebrews 4:16 (New King James Version)
Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Revelation 1:6 (New King James Version)
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

3. Praying to Mary is not found in scripture. Mary was a human being and had no form of deity. Praying to Mary would be no different that praying to my great-grandfather. Yes Mary was blessed among women and was chosen to birth Jesus Christ, but she is still a sinner like the rest of the world and should not be held up to a place of deity.

4. Purgatory is not found in the Bible. The Bible only mentions Heaven and Hell.

5. Baptism is not a part of salvation. You are saved through faith. Baptism is something every believer should go through in order to publicly identify themselves with Jesus Christ, but it is not mandatory for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (New King James Version)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

6. Catholicism is very ritualistic, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. Depending on if people are just simply going through rituals without thinking seriously about what they are doing.

Matthew 6:7 (New King James Version)
And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

7. They pile other books on top of the Bible. When somebody tries to refute my previous points they will more than likely use quotes and passages out of several different books. These include but are not limited to: The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), The Council of Trent, and The Handbook for Today's Catholics.

Here are some questions that I would have for Catholic believers:

A. What rituals must you perform in order to obtain the grace of God?
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6).
B. Are you being good enough to keep yourself saved?
C. If your salvation is dependent, in part, upon your ability to repent of your sins, what do you do with those sins you have not repented of because you don't know about them?

 

[Fernando Rocker]

My issues with the Catholic church (Doctrinal Issues)

1. Many Catholic churches tend to make their members feel as if they cannot understand the scripture for themselves. This is either insinuated or directly mentioned. They set up a structure that makes members feel that the priest is the only one who understand the scriptures and he must be the one to inform the members about what the Bible has to say. This is very dangerous in that the priest could manipulate the members very easily since his messages are not cross checked by the members using the Bible.

2. The Catholic church also tends to use the priest as a mediator between God and man. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. The Bible teaches that all believers are made priests and therefore do not need an earthly mediator.

Hebrews 4:16 (New King James Version)
Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Revelation 1:6 (New King James Version)
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

3. Praying to Mary is not found in scripture. Mary was a human being and had no form of deity. Praying to Mary would be no different that praying to my great-grandfather. Yes Mary was blessed among women and was chosen to birth Jesus Christ, but she is still a sinner like the rest of the world and should not be help up to a place of deity.

4. Purgatory is not found in the Bible. The Bible only mentions Heaven and Hell.

5. Baptism is not a part of salvation. You are saved through faith. Baptism is something every believer should go through in order to publicly identify themselves with Jesus Christ, but it is not mandatory for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (New King James Version)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

6. Catholicism is very ritualistic, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. Depending on if people are just simply going through rituals without thinking seriously about what they are doing.

Matthew 6:7 (New King James Version)
And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

7. They pile other books on top of the Bible. When somebody tries to refute my previous points they will more than likely use quotes and passages out of several different books. These include but are not limited to: The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), The Council of Trent, and The Handbook for Today's Catholics.

Here are some questions that I would have for Catholic believers:

A. What rituals must you perform in order to obtain the grace of God?
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6).
B. Are you being good enough to keep yourself saved?
C. If your salvation is dependent, in part, upon your ability to repent of your sins, what do you do with those since you have not repented of because you don't know about them?

Excellent post.

 

[The Lamp]

My issues with the Catholic church (Doctrinal Issues)

1. Many Catholic churches tend to make their members feel as if they cannot understand the scripture for themselves. This is either insinuated or directly mentioned. They set up a structure that makes members feel that the priest is the only one who understand the scriptures and he must be the one to inform the members about what the Bible has to say. This is very dangerous in that the priest could manipulate the members very easily since his messages are not cross checked by the members using the Bible.

2. The Catholic church also tends to use the priest as a mediator between God and man. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. The Bible teaches that all believers are made priests and therefore do not need an earthly mediator.

Hebrews 4:16 (New King James Version)
Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Revelation 1:6 (New King James Version)
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

3. Praying to Mary is not found in scripture. Mary was a human being and had no form of deity. Praying to Mary would be no different that praying to my great-grandfather. Yes Mary was blessed among women and was chosen to birth Jesus Christ, but she is still a sinner like the rest of the world and should not be help up to a place of deity.

4. Purgatory is not found in the Bible. The Bible only mentions Heaven and Hell.

5. Baptism is not a part of salvation. You are saved through faith. Baptism is something every believer should go through in order to publicly identify themselves with Jesus Christ, but it is not mandatory for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (New King James Version)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

6. Catholicism is very ritualistic, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. Depending on if people are just simply going through rituals without thinking seriously about what they are doing.

Matthew 6:7 (New King James Version)
And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

7. They pile other books on top of the Bible. When somebody tries to refute my previous points they will more than likely use quotes and passages out of several different books. These include but are not limited to: The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), The Council of Trent, and The Handbook for Today's Catholics.

Here are some questions that I would have for Catholic believers:

A. What rituals must you perform in order to obtain the grace of God?
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6).
B. Are you being good enough to keep yourself saved?
C. If your salvation is dependent, in part, upon your ability to repent of your sins, what do you do with those since you have not repented of because you don't know about them?

Pretty much precisely my issues with the doctrine.

I know that in my Latin American home-country, almost every devout Catholic I know of thought they were saved simply because they did things like tithed, or never divorced, or were baptized as an infant, or attended mass every once in a while or for Christmas. Yet my family had never even opened up a Bible, let alone been told they should, until they came to the United States.

Not saying this is the case for all Catholics or what they believe, but that's how it was back home, and it's still hard trying to talk to friends and family back there because they honestly think they don't need to do anything more than what I mentioned to be "cool with God". They carry on doing whatever they usually do, but have no relationship with Christ.

 

[phisheep]

My issues with the Catholic church (Doctrinal Issues)

That's well put. Lemme try to respond because I think some of your points (not all) are a bit off balance.

1. Many Catholic churches tend to make their members feel as if they cannot understand the scripture for themselves. This is either insinuated or directly mentioned. They set up a structure that makes members feel that the priest is the only one who understand the scriptures and he must be the one to inform the members about what the Bible has to say. This is very dangerous in that the priest could manipulate the members very easily since his messages are not cross checked by the members using the Bible.

As I posted above, that's not my experience. Indeed, I've had fairly lively conversations with priests and congregation members about the Bible. To be fair, it was the case for a long time, and I guess that it still is the case in some places. But the Second Vatican Council explicitly encouraged both clergy and laity to continue to make Bible study a part of their daily lives. So it was going on before that as well, or at least thought to be.

I haven't been to "many" Catholic churches - just a few - but it is something like 40 years since I heard anyone even hint that the Bible was thought to be beyond me.

2. The Catholic church also tends to use the priest as a mediator between God and man. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. The Bible teaches that all believers are made priests and therefore do not need an earthly mediator.

Hebrews 4:16 (New King James Version)
Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Revelation 1:6 (New King James Version)
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I think maybe that is only true in the context of the Confessional - and even then it isn't really an intermediary role, but a rather strange combination of a social services mechanism with prayer.

The fact of somebody presiding over a service is by no means unique to the Catholic Church, and gives the priest no more of an intermediary role than it does elsewhere.

3. Praying to Mary is not found in scripture. Mary was a human being and had no form of deity. Praying to Mary would be no different that praying to my great-grandfather. Yes Mary was blessed among women and was chosen to birth Jesus Christ, but she is still a sinner like the rest of the world and should not be held up to a place of deity.

That one's a fair cop I think. I'd probably go further than that and question the whole intercession of the saints thing. It is sort of a hangover from the Middle Ages.

I don't think it hugely imprtant doctrinally though - not something to get really het up over.

4. Purgatory is not found in the Bible. The Bible only mentions Heaven and Hell.

Well it isn't found in Catholic Doctrine as a physical place either, at least not recently. And whether it's in the Bible or not might depend which version you have - there appear to be some hints in 2 Maccabees for example, but I guess you don't have that book in your Bible (those Deuterocanonical books, or as some call them the Apocrypha, have quite a bit to answer for).

Besides, even if you do consider that the Bible is true that doesn't mean that nothing else is. There's great swathes of argument to be had on that point, but I don't really want to get into it!

5. Baptism is not a part of salvation. You are saved through faith. Baptism is something every believer should go through in order to publicly identify themselves with Jesus Christ, but it is not mandatory for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (New King James Version)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

I don't think I ever gave a thought to whether baptism was part of salvation. I know it used to be thought so many years ago. In fact the whole thing about salvation and defining what is necessary for it seems to me to be usurping God's will. I don't presume to be saved, whether by faith, baptism, confession or anything else. I don't see why anyone else does either - it's not humble.

6. Catholicism is very ritualistic, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. Depending on if people are just simply going through rituals without thinking seriously about what they are doing.

Matthew 6:7 (New King James Version)
And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

The ritual's just fine, but it isn't the whole of Catholicism by any means. And at least the ritual is explicit - there's a whole host of elaborate social conventions followed in evangelical prayer meetings, for example, that can just as easily put a newcomer off.

7. They pile other books on top of the Bible. When somebody tries to refute my previous points they will more than likely use quotes and passages out of several different books. These include but are not limited to: The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), The Council of Trent, and The Handbook for Today's Catholics.

The Bible may be true, but it does not contain the whole truth. It isn't big enough for starters.

And, unless you discount all direct revelation, all answering of prayer, and all interpretational guides - in fact all contemporary communication with God, there are divine truths that are not in the Bible.

Of course, that leads to another problem of which ones are true and which ones aren't - that's a problem of selection, authority and - yes - faith, but I can't see any good reason the Bible should be the only source of knowledge. Might be the most reliable though.

Here are some questions that I would have for Catholic believers:

A. What rituals must you perform in order to obtain the grace of God?
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6).
B. Are you being good enough to keep yourself saved?
C. If your salvation is dependent, in part, upon your ability to repent of your sins, what do you do with those sins you have not repented of because you don't know about them?

A. None. The grace of God isn't dependent on rituals.
B. Not relevant. It isn't to do with how good I am, or believe myself to be.
C. That's a big IF right there. And the rider is just nitpicking, so here's a nitpicking answer - as a weak and imperfect being I know that I cannot recall all of my sins so I repent as well for all those I cannot remember. It isn't necessary to know something to repent it.

Surprised?

 

[Dunk#7]

That's well put. Lemme try to respond because I think some of your points (not all) are a bit off balance.


Well it isn't found in Catholic Doctrine as a physical place either, at least not recently. And whether it's in the Bible or not might depend which version you have - there appear to be some hints in 2 Maccabees for example, but I guess you don't have that book in your Bible (those Deuterocanonical books, or as some call them the Apocrypha, have quite a bit to answer for).

Besides, even if you do consider that the Bible is true that doesn't mean that nothing else is. There's great swathes of argument to be had on that point, but I don't really want to get into it!


The Bible may be true, but it does not contain the whole truth. It isn't big enough for starters.

And, unless you discount all direct revelation, all answering of prayer, and all interpretational guides - in fact all contemporary communication with God, there are divine truths that are not in the Bible.

Of course, that leads to another problem of which ones are true and which ones aren't - that's a problem of selection, authority and - yes - faith, but I can't see any good reason the Bible should be the only source of knowledge. Might be the most reliable though.


Surprised?

Very well put. Thank you for addressing my points so nicely. I enjoy polite debate.

To be honest I am a bit surprised by your viewpoints. Your views seem to match mine more than I thought. However, I am not sure what the majority of Catholics believe. I have a feeling a lot are relying on works and not simply faith.



One point I did want to counter was the fact that you said it was ok to have other sources of inspiration and knowledge other than the Bible. I would say that is all well and good unless there is a direct conflict with Biblical scripture. Much of what is said in the books that I mentioned has some serious conflicts with the Bible. When the CCC says one thing and the Bible says another which side do you take?

My main point would be just be VERY careful about what you add or take away from the Bible as there is some very harsh scripture that talks about it.

Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2 (New King James Version)
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.


I also wanted to follow up with a question because I cannot get a good feeling for where you stand on the issue.

Do you believe in "once in grace always in grace" or do you believe that you can lose your salvation?

 

[Chaplain]

Do you believe in "once in grace always in grace" or do you believe that you can lose your salvation?

I would like to answer your question if you do not mind.

There is a simple way to understand this. Salvation is very much like a marriage. At any time I can leave my wife and divorce her. This is the same thing with my relationship with God. At any time I can walk away from God and go back to my life.

Knowing this, the majority of the writings in the New Testament are focused on warning believers not to walk away from God. If believers could not lose their salvation, there would be no need to warn believers about losing it.

The Apostle Peter talks about Christians who became false prophets and lost their faith because of it.
The Apostle John also talks about believers who walked away from God and lost their salvation.

Can these people repent and turn back to Christ? Of course!

God will not force anyone to be with him though. Very much like my wife does not want me to stay with her if I do not want to be with her and vice versa.

Jesus said that each day we must make the choice to walk with God or not walk with Him. We are given freewill after we have been saved to continue living for God or for ourselves.

 

[jdogmoney]

Jesus said that each day we must make the choice to walk with God or not walk with Him. We are given freewill after we have been saved to continue living for God or for ourselves.

Are these the only options?

Could one, for example, live for other people?

 

[Dunk#7]

I would like to answer your question if you do not mind.

There is a simple way to understand this. Salvation is very much like a marriage. At any time I can leave my wife and divorce her. This is the same thing with my relationship with God. At any time I can walk away from God and go back to my life.

Knowing this, the majority of the writings in the New Testament are focused on warning believers not to walk away from God. If believers could not lose their salvation, there would be no need to warn believers about losing it.

The Apostle Peter talks about Christians who became false prophets and lost their faith because of it.
The Apostle John also talks about believers who walked away from God and lost their salvation.

Can these people repent and turn back to Christ? Of course!

God will not force anyone to be with him though. Very much like my wife does not want me to stay with her if I do not want to be with her and vice versa.

Jesus said that each day we must make the choice to walk with God or not walk with Him. We are given freewill after we have been saved to continue living for God or for ourselves.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

I do not believe that you can lose your salvation due to sin. If you hold onto hat belief then that is like saying what Jesus did on the cross was not enough to cover your current and future sins.

You do not have to continually ask for forgiveness in order to make it to Heaven. I am not saying that you should not be repenting and asking for forgiveness. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement for salvation.

What happens if somebody has a bad thought right before a deadly car accident and they did not have time to ask for forgiveness or repent. Are they still saved? Yes. Will they still get into Heaven? Yes.



I can kind of see what you mean about people completely turning their backs on God and no longer believing what Jesus did on the cross. If somebody no longer accepts the payment then I could see them not being saved.

However, I do not think that unconfessed sin or lack of repentance will keep you out of Heaven.

 

[Chaplain]

Are these the only options?

Could one, for example, live for other people?

Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

If you are loving God and people, by putting them above your own needs, you are practicing both of the commandments. Is this what you meant or did you have another definition for "living for other people"?

 

[Chaplain]

I have to disagree with you on this point.

I do not believe that you can lose your salvation due to sin. If you hold onto hat belief then that is like saying what Jesus did on the cross was not enough to cover your current and future sins.

What Jesus did was enough. What I am talking about is people who deny Christ by how they live. Here is a good example:

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Galatians 5

You do not have to continually ask for forgiveness in order to make it to Heaven. I am not saying that you should not be repenting and asking for forgiveness. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement for salvation.

Again, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about walking away from God.

However, I do not think that unconfessed sin or lack of repentance will keep you out of Heaven.

Read what the Apostle John wrote:

"Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God." 1 John 3

Everyday Christians have a choice to live for God or live for Satan (themselves). People walk away from God by going back into a life style of sin. The Bible says there is no security in doing this. Jesus does say that we are secure in in our salvation is we abide in Christ.

As the Apostle John wrote:

"If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God's word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did."

 

[phisheep]

Very well put. Thank you for addressing my points so nicely. I enjoy polite debate.

To be honest I am a bit surprised by your viewpoints. Your views seem to match mine more than I thought. However, I am not sure what the majority of Catholics believe.

It's strange how Catholic doctrine and viewpoints have been demonised from time to time by others. When I was growing up in South Wales some kids I knew at school had been told by their grandparents that Catholics had invisible horns growing from their heads, and there's more than one girl I was forbidden to see by her parents because of my religion.

But I've been around a bit. As well as Catholics I've spent personal time and church time with Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals of various flavours, Greek Orthodox and probably a few others.

There's nothing particularly unusual about Catholics. Pretty much the same as everybody else.

I have a feeling a lot are relying on works and not simply faith.

I don't think that is true. Or at least not mostly. I posted further up the thread a bit about it - it seems to me it is a sort of mantra used by protestants to bash Catholics with. I've never heard a Catholic (priest or lay or bishop) say or preach or hint that we are justified or saved by our works.

Oh, and I spent some time in a seminary and a couple of abbeys too - and I didn't hear it there either.

So when you say you have a 'feeling' about it - I'm guessing its a feeling that you caught off your coreligionists, whoever they are, and that you can safely ignore!

I also wanted to follow up with a question because I cannot get a good feeling for where you stand on the issue.

Do you believe in "once in grace always in grace" or do you believe that you can lose your salvation?

The answer is very simple - it's God's call, not mine. I don't take a view on it. I don't have the knowledge, skills or time to research it and even if I did so I'd probably do it badly and get it wrong. Besides, it wouldn't make any difference to how I live my life. So I'm strictly agnostic on that.

Now a question for you (in an attempt to not spend the rest of my life facing anti-Catholic curveballs in this thread!).

If justification/salvation is by faith and by faith alone - what do all these relatively minor doctrinal differences matter? Why do people care so much about them and get so hot under the collar?

 

[jdogmoney]

Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

If you are loving God and people, by putting them above your own needs, you are practicing both of the commandments. Is this what you meant or did you have another definition for "living for other people"?

Like, someone who doesn't believe in God, but still does good for the sake of other people and does everything they can to make the world a better place.

 

[phisheep]

One point I did want to counter was the fact that you said it was ok to have other sources of inspiration and knowledge other than the Bible. I would say that is all well and good unless there is a direct conflict with Biblical scripture. Much of what is said in the books that I mentioned has some serious conflicts with the Bible. When the CCC says one thing and the Bible says another which side do you take?

Oops, forgot to answer you on this point.

Simple answer again (I like simple answers) - I don't read the CCC. Not all that sure that many people do - it's not like it's the Bible or anything!

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Now a question for you (in an attempt to not spend the rest of my life facing anti-Catholic curveballs in this thread!).

If justification/salvation is by faith and by faith alone - what do all these relatively minor doctrinal differences matter? Why do people care so much about them and get so hot under the collar?

faith alone doesn't redeem you.
people get heated because they are passionate about how others are spreading the gospels.
i would think its that same mindset you have to defend the catholic doctrine in this thread.

but less hot.

 

[Dunk#7]

Now a question for you (in an attempt to not spend the rest of my life facing anti-Catholic curveballs in this thread!).

If justification/salvation is by faith and by faith alone - what do all these relatively minor doctrinal differences matter? Why do people care so much about them and get so hot under the collar?

I agree with you that we spend far too much time debating the minor aspects of Biblical teachings.

As long as you have the core doctrine correct then we should be uplifting each other. However, I don't have a problem with discussing the smaller issues as long as nobody gets mad of frustrated in doing so.

I enjoy arguing and never get upset by opposing views, but there are those who fly off the handle in arguments. This bickering and arguing over minor issues does tend to look bad from the outside world and turns people off to Christianity.

So in conclusion it is bad to get into heated debates about small issues that could turn others away, but it is fine to have a nice discussion about the finer points without becoming angry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the Apostle John wrote:

"If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God's word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did."

We are not in the position to judge, but how do you know if the person was saved in the first place?

There are two positions on this argument.

1. A person living that way was never saved because believer would never continue to knowingly live in sin. They would be convicted daily by the Holy Spirit.

2. A person can be saved and completely turn from God and knowingly live in sin. This would cause them to lose their salvation.

So in my view it may not be that a person is losing their salvation if they never had it in the first place.

 

[Dunk#7]

faith alone doesn't redeem you.
people get heated because they are passionate about how others are spreading the gospels.
i would think its that same mindset you have to defend the catholic doctrine in this thread.

but less hot.

What do you do with all of the following verses in the Bible?

There is a pretty strong argument for faith alone.

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."

Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

 

[Herpes Reasons]

What do you do with all of the following verses in the Bible?

There is a pretty strong argument for faith alone.

do you understand what "faith" means in the orignal greek?
it simply means commonly "to understand what is true"
are you telling me even demons have a shot at redemption?
and faith isn't the same word in greek in all those passages.
taking one verse alone welcomes many forms of interpretation.

 

[JGS]

What do you do with all of the following verses in the Bible?

There is a pretty strong argument for faith alone.

Trying to stay out of this, but a lot of those verses deal with works involving the Law, something the Jewish Christians had a hard time letting going of.

Faith, however, is regularly linked to activity. If one has faith they cant really help but act on it. So technically, it's true that faith is all you need, but that faith is demonstrated through the activities of worship which means preaching, helping the needy, perservering under hardship, not compromising in belief, avoiding sin, etc...

If we are supposed to follow Christ, then it is very clear that action is needed to really be faithful. Jesus was a great big ball of action Otherwise there is no proof that we are faithful if that makes sense.

This is why James said faith without works is dead. They must co-exist or neither one of them actually does exist.

 

[Chaplain]

Like, someone who doesn't believe in God, but still does good for the sake of other people and does everything they can to make the world a better place.

I think it is the same thing. But those good works will not earn a person salvation. God only accepts perfect deeds. Meaning that all of a persons deeds must be perfect for their entire life. That is why we each need Jesus. He is the only one that had perfect deeds his entire life.

 

[Dunk#7]

do you understand what "faith" means in the orignal greek?
it simply means commonly "to understand what is true"
are you telling me even demons have a shot at redemption?
and faith isn't the same word in greek in all those passages.
taking one verse alone welcomes many forms of interpretation.

Yes I understand that the Bible says, "Even the demons believe and tremble"

But do you understand what the definition of "repent" is? It simply means to have a change of mind. When the Bible refers to repenting during the salvation process it is simply talking about your change of mind in regards to how you take Jesus Christ.

The Bible says faith alone numerous times.

I understand that there is more than one word for faith in the original Greek and Hebrew, but that does not change the meaning of those verses.

Feel free to post all of those versus in context (with or without their Greek references). It will not change their meaning.

Trying to stay out of this, but a lot of those verses deal with works involving the Law, something the Jewish Christians had a hard time letting going of.

Faith, however, is regularly linked to activity. If one has faith they cant really help but act on it. So technically, it's true that faith is all you need, but that faith is demonstrated through the activities of worship which means preaching, helping the needy, perservering under hardship, not compromising in belief, avoiding sin, etc...

If we are supposed to follow Christ, then it is very clear that action is needed to really be faithful. Jesus was a great big ball of action Otherwise there is no proof that we are faithful if that makes sense.

This is why James said faith without works is dead. They must co-exist or neither one of them actually does exist.

Yes, but just because they almost always co-exist does not mean that the works are necessary.

Works should be evident in a Christians life, but they are not part of salvation.

What about the person that accepts Christ on their deathbed? Works are not required for salvation. Jesus paid it all. We can do nothing to merit Heaven. Even our best is but filthy rags unto God the Bible says.

 

[Chaplain]

So in my view it may not be that a person is losing their salvation if they never had it in the first place.

Your position is wrong though when compared to the writings of the Apostles. Their writings clearly state that believers can leave Christ if they chose to do so.

2 Peter 3:17
"I am warning you ahead of time, dear friends. Be on guard so that you will not be carried away by the errors of these wicked people and lose your own secure footing."

Peter (for this example) would not warn believers about losing their salvation if they could not lose it.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Yes I understand that the Bible says, "Even the demons believe and tremble"

But do you understand what the definition of "repent" is? It simply means to have a change of mind. When the Bible refers to repenting during the salvation process it is simply talking about your change of mind in regards to how you take Jesus Christ.

The Bible says faith alone numerous times.

I understand that there is more than one word for faith in the original Greek and Hebrew, but that does not change the meaning of those verses.

Feel free to post all of those versus in context (with or without their Greek references). It will not change their meaning.

repentance is quite different from faith.
there's sanctification through continual repentance and there's grace through faith. both are married, but distinctly different
and repentance isn't a "change of mind in regards to how you take Jesus Christ." but a change of mind of how we view our own sins.

 

[Dunk#7]

Your position is wrong though when compared to the writings of the Apostles. Their writings clearly state that believers can leave Christ if they chose to do so.

2 Peter 3:17
"I am warning you ahead of time, dear friends. Be on guard so that you will not be carried away by the errors of these wicked people and lose your own secure footing."

Peter (for this example) would not warn believers about losing their salvation if they could not lose it.

Just because you lose your "secure footing" does not mean you have lost your salvation.

It just means your foundation is not stable and you would be vulnerable to sin due to your weak understanding of the scripture.

 

[Chaplain]

Here is the Biblical defenition of repentance:

repentance

REPENT'ANCE, n.

1. Sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.
2. In theology, the pain, regret or affliction which a person feels on account of his past conduct, because it exposes him to punishment. This sorrow proceeding merely from the fear of punishment, is called legal repentance, as being excited by the terrors of legal penalties, and it may exist without an amendment of life.
3. Real penitence; sorrow or deep contrition for sin, as an offense and dishonor to God, a violation of his holy law, and the basest ingratitude towards a Being of infinite benevolence. This is called evangelical repentance, and is accompanied and followed by amendment of life.
Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God.

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2Cor. 7. Matt. 3.
Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God

 

[Chaplain]

Just because you lose your "secure footing" does not mean you have lost your salvation.

If other scriptures didn't support it I wouldn't believe it:

Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons."

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

Thank you for the attacking my understanding of scripture.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Aside from several major theological differences (confession, great emphasis on works, position of Mary, Mass, etc), it is the position of the church itself that I just can't reconcile to Biblical theology. The Roman Catholic Church is placed on such a pedestal by Catholics, that it's basically as important as Christ himself. In fact, they refer to the organisation as 'the Body of Christ' (and I understand the scriptural reference here).

From my Catholic perspective: The Church is the reason why we have the Bible, the Eucharist why Christians have the Creed, and so forth. For Catholics, this institution has kept the Word in this world for over 2,000 years. And Catholics believe that the Church itself was founded by Christ. Tu es Petrus, and all that.

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church has proven to be incredibly corrupt throughout its entire history. From the Crusades and actively trying to stop the common man from being able to read The Bible, all the way to turning a blind eye to Nazism and covering up pedophilia among priests. Now that, on its own, is not unique to the Catholic Church. Horrible things have been done in the name in Protestantism. But I don't put all that great importance on human organisations. We are all sinners. But how can anyone say "I have faith in this church and its traditions"? It truly baffles me. I'd honestly like a Catholic to be able to explain it, because I just don't get it.

How much do you actually know about any of these things?