A case for Catholicism: rbdeli & Knight go One on One.

[rbdeli]

Knight. SORRY! I know this is so long. Take your time with it, and don’t feel you have to address every point. It’s understanding and knowledge we’re after, right?

We’ll get back to the argument over dispensation a little later because there is something far more important that is getting overlooked by non-Catholics, and I can’t seem to get this to sink in to non-Catholics. I will say this emphatically: We do not believe we can add to Christ’s finished work on the Cross. I can prove this in so many ways. Your last reply indicates that there is still a huge misunderstanding of non-Catholics believing in works of the law as a means for salvation. You use verses like Galatians 3:1 below as if it proves something against the Catholic Faith. Catholics agree 100% with this passage from Galatians. In fact, I think you are not fully interpreting what Paul means about the Truth - the FULL truth and what it means. We agree, there is nothing we can do of our own flesh to add to Christ’s finished work on the Cross. You insist that Catholics are practicing works of flesh and the law in order to add something to Grace. This is just so inaccurate and probably the greatest misunderstanding of the Catholic faith. To Catholics, there is NO LAW other than loving God. We go to mass and participate in the body and blood of the Lord and his other sacramental gifts not because we are following a law or wanting to avoid condemnation. We do it because we are in a relationship with Christ. When you love God, you should WANT to spend time with Christ, right? The only law is love, but love includes participation and time spent with those we love. Can you be saved if you do not Love Christ? When one of your children is sick, why do you stay up all night with them? At three in the morning, we’d all rather be in bed sleeping especially when we have to get up early to go to work the next morning. We make that sacrifice because we love our children, not because we think we can add something to our relationship. Sacrificing for our kids IS part of that relationship. Loving Christ means the very same thing. We don’t try to earn our salvation or add anything to Christ’s given Grace, but we participate and respond to that Grace because we love God. Obedience to Christ’s Love is a work of faith, not a work of the Law. God commands us to love him above anything else. He commands us to love our family and our neighbor as ourselves. Are we adding to Christ’s finished work on the cross when we stay up all night with a sick child? Are we attempting to add something to the relationship by our works of love? Are we adding to Christ’s finished work on the cross because we desire to take part in his body and blood at Mass?
<O
Loving God and participating in our relationship is not a work of the flesh, it is sewing in the spirit. Galatians 6:8-10. Sewing to the spirit, does not mean our flesh doesn’t participate, it means we don’t use our FLESH AS A MEANS to earn salvation. The, Paul says, we still must not lose heart to finish the race.
<O
In my analogy, having faith in your coach, doesn’t mean you just have to believe what he said and you will make the team. You still have to use your arms, legs and body. You have to respond to his Grace which gave you the opportunity to make the team merely by participating in his plan. You participate by believing him, then DOING it on the field. If you practice every day, work hard, and use your body to make plays, are you using your own flesh to add to the coach’s plan, or are you participating in his plan? If he says, ‘we do it this way’, and you decide to add your own wrinkles or plays, THAT, would be adding to the plan. Just as, the Eucharist is not an addition to his Grace, it is part of your loving response which without it, Christ says you have no life: John 6:53. Now, I realize you may disagree on the real presence (we can debate this too), but at the very least, you have to understand that if the presence of the Lord at Mass is real, then taking part in the Eucharist is NOT A WORK OF THE LAW, but a living participation in Christ’s love, just as is your relationship with your own children. Whether you make sacrifices for them or spend time with your family because you enjoy it, its works of love, not works of law.
<O
With works of love, we sew to the spirit, not the flesh. Because the spirit is love, and love produces fruitful works: If works are fruitful, are they not from loving God? Can any fruitful work be possible without God?
<O
Colossians 1:9-10
For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood,the forgiveness of sins.
<O
Note, how Paul says that we walk worthy? By your definition, Paul is asking us to add to Christ’s finished work. Walking, pleasing, being fruitful – all things Catholics believe in and do. What does it mean to NOT be worthy of the Lord. Can one still be saved, who is NOT worthy?
<O
Knight: I realize that I did not respond point to point to everything you said. It just so happens this is a key difference in understanding that needs to be clarified. If there is a key point you made, that you feel I neglected, please state it again, and I’ll address it. I just feel like there is so much to say, and not enough time to do it all at once. My purpose here was to illustrate the misunderstanding of Catholics about Works and the Law.On the other hand, I don’t expect a point by point reply from you either. Proceed as you wish to make your key points, and I promise to read it all.
<O
I’m not so much after agreement, just now. I want you to have a better understanding of what Catholics believe, in order for you to understand Catholicism better. I asked you whether or not you’ve read a Catholic Book. You responded that the bible was enough, and then recommended another book about dispensation of your own. If a bible is all that is needed, why do we need ANY book? By whose authority, is the book you recommend the one that gives the authentic interpretation of the Bible plot? Certainly we have books because we do not all agree on what the bible says. This is why I wanted you to read a book by Scott Hahn, to give you the opposing view to your Dispensation Theory, and the one that’s been believed in and accepted by the oldest, most universal church in the world. Catholic Scholars certainly understand Dispensation Theology. They study this stuff at seminaries. However, The Catholic Church has a view that is diametrically opposed to Dispensation, It is not the same plot, but is the one that we Catholics believe is real, biblical, and consistent from verse to verse in every context. After looking at your friend’s website, I found one thing to be very interesting in his introduction to his book. He talks about reconciling verses, and attributes it to the reason there are so many Protestant denominations. Until Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, there was only one. There are no verses for Catholics to reconcile, and we don’t need Dispensation Theology to make sense of it. Jesus, Peter, Paul – James, they all are in complete accordance with one another. Your friend didn’t mention the Catholic Church in his introduction. I would guess he doesn’t consider Catholic Christian, despite the fact all of these other denominations resulted from a break-way of the one universal Church that existed numerous centuries before the reform.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You use verses like Galatians 3:1 below as if it proves something against the Catholic Faith. Catholics agree 100% with this passage from Galatians. In fact, I think you are not fully interpreting what Paul means about the Truth - the FULL truth and what it means. We agree, there is nothing we can do of our own flesh to add to Christ’s finished work on the Cross. You insist that Catholics are practicing works of flesh and the law in order to add something to Grace. This is just so inaccurate and probably the greatest misunderstanding of the Catholic faith. To Catholics, there is NO LAW other than loving God. We go to mass and participate in the body and blood of the Lord and his other sacramental gifts not because we are following a law or wanting to avoid condemnation. We do it because we are in a relationship with Christ.

I want to believe you when you tell me that. I really do.

But when you tell me that it is a mortal sin to miss mass what am I supposed to think? :idunno:

When you love God, you should WANT to spend time with Christ, right?

Yes.

The only law is love, but love includes participation and time spent with those we love. Can you be saved if you do not Love Christ? When one of your children is sick, why do you stay up all night with them? At three in the morning, we’d all rather be in bed sleeping especially when we have to get up early to go to work the next morning. We make that sacrifice because we love our children, not because we think we can add something to our relationship. Sacrificing for our kids IS part of that relationship. Loving Christ means the very same thing. We don’t try to earn our salvation or add anything to Christ’s given Grace, but we participate and respond to that Grace because we love God. Obedience to Christ’s Love is a work of faith, not a work of the Law. God commands us to love him above anything else. He commands us to love our family and our neighbor as ourselves. Are we adding to Christ’s finished work on the cross when we stay up all night with a sick child? Are we attempting to add something to the relationship by our works of love? Are we adding to Christ’s finished work on the cross because we desire to take part in his body and blood at Mass?

Not if it were only a desire. If your claim was that it was merely your desire to participate in mass I don't think we would have any argument. But the instant you claim missing mass is a mortal sin you have moved out of the realm of grace (Romans 6:11) and into the realm of faith plus works.

Loving God and participating in our relationship is not a work of the flesh, it is sewing in the spirit. Galatians 6:8-10. Sewing to the spirit, does not mean our flesh doesn’t participate, it means we don’t use our FLESH AS A MEANS to earn salvation. The, Paul says, we still must not lose heart to finish the race.

OK, that sounds good but let me ask you this....

You admitted that missing mass is a mortal sin. So prior to missing mass you were in good standing with the Lord but now you have missed mass and have mortally sinned, are you still in good standing with God?

Is there any consequence to the mortal sin of missing mass?

(i.e., are you now headed for hell if you don't confess and repent? Or are you demoted to purgatory? What is the consequence for missing mass?)

In my analogy, having faith in your coach, doesn’t mean you just have to believe what he said and you will make the team. You still have to use your arms, legs and body. You have to respond to his Grace which gave you the opportunity to make the team merely by participating in his plan. You participate by believing him, then DOING it on the field. If you practice every day, work hard, and use your body to make plays, are you using your own flesh to add to the coach’s plan, or are you participating in his plan? If he says, ‘we do it this way’, and you decide to add your own wrinkles or plays, THAT, would be adding to the plan. Just as, the Eucharist is not an addition to his Grace, it is part of your loving response which without it, Christ says you have no life: John 6:53. Now, I realize you may disagree on the real presence (we can debate this too), but at the very least, you have to understand that if the presence of the Lord at Mass is real, then taking part in the Eucharist is NOT A WORK OF THE LAW, but a living participation in Christ’s love, just as is your relationship with your own children. Whether you make sacrifices for them or spend time with your family because you enjoy it, its works of love, not works of law.

If it weren't a work it wouldn't be sinful if you missed mass.

You can make the claim until you are blue in the face but having to perform any action to avoid losing your standing with God is a work.

That's why analogies break down. For instance, I like your analogy about the father and his children and staying up with them while they are sick. It warms my heart and it reinforces my belief in what a great father you are. But it's just an analogy and it breaks down when you dig deeper in comparing it to our relationship with Christ.

But I still do love the analogy. :up:

With works of love, we sew to the spirit, not the flesh. Because the spirit is love, and love produces fruitful works: If works are fruitful, are they not from loving God? Can any fruitful work be possible without God?

Yes. A fruitful work can indeed be possible without God.

Read the parable about the good Samaritan for a great example.

For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood,the forgiveness of sins.​

Note, how Paul says that we walk worthy? By your definition, Paul is asking us to add to Christ’s finished work. Walking, pleasing, being fruitful – all things Catholics believe in and do. What does it mean to NOT be worthy of the Lord. Can one still be saved, who is NOT worthy?

There is more to walking in the Lord than just being saved.

We are asked to endure hardship, suffer for His sake, and many other things.... and if we do, we will reign with Christ in heaven! We will expand the body of Christ, and we will not grieve the Holy Spirit. If we don't endure hardship, suffer for His sake, etc. we will grieve the Holy Spirit... but we cannot extricate ourselves from the Body of Christ, we are sealed into the Body by the Holy Spirit (2Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30). Paul often uses the term "adoption" (Ephesians 1:5) because in those days an adopted son could not be rejected. You could reject your own son, but if you adopted a son... he could not be rejected. The adopted son will get his inheritance no matter what.

Knight: I realize that I did not respond point to point to everything you said. It just so happens this is a key difference in understanding that needs to be clarified. If there is a key point you made, that you feel I neglected, please state it again, and I’ll address it. I just feel like there is so much to say, and not enough time to do it all at once. My purpose here was to illustrate the misunderstanding of Catholics about Works and the Law.On the other hand, I don’t expect a point by point reply from you either. Proceed as you wish to make your key points, and I promise to read it all.

No, you responded just fine. This last post of yours was an excellent, well thought out post. I appreciate it very much.

I’m not so much after agreement, just now. I want you to have a better understanding of what Catholics believe, in order for you to understand Catholicism better.

:up:

 

[rbdeli]

But when you tell me that it is a mortal sin to miss mass what am I supposed to think? :idunno:

Catholics basically believe that in order to go to hell you have to choose hell. Therefore, if you believe in the Holy Mass as the Lord's banquet or the Supper of the Lamb, and that God is inviting you to attend his banquet and you say "no", that is like saying no to Heaven. We quite literally believe that the Mass is Heaven on earth. But, the key to a mortal sin is really believing and understanding that you are separating yourself from God completely and possibly eternally, and going ahead with the sin anyway. If you believe that the Mass is truly Heaven on earth, and you are invited, but don't go anyway, you make a consciencious choice to reject Heaven. In today's world, it is not always easy for some to come to this belief, and therefore, they aren't to blame for not accepting what they have not been taught as the truth. In order for any sin to be a sin there has to be knowledge that such action is a sin, and a willful choice must be involved. In order for a sin to be a mortal sin, there has to be knowledge, choice, and the sin must be of a serious nature. Not attending the Lord's Supper, though you have been invited and fully believe that the Lord calls you is a serious matter because you are separating yourself from God willfully. Our Mass is not like a Protestant service. It is the Lord's Supper. My wife and I have a Protestant friend that visited us last year. We made some plans for Sunday, which included getting up a little earlier than usual to go to Mass. She thought that was completely unneccessary, and told us that because she reads the bible an hour a day that's plenty good enough for spending time with God. She simply didn't realize what Mass means to a Catholic. It is the sacrifice of the Lamb, and it is quite literally, Heaven. It may not seem like Heaven, and we don't see it as Heaven in all of its glory, but this is where faith comes in. We are asked to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

That's why analogies break down. For instance, I like your analogy about the father and his children and staying up with them while they are sick. It warms my heart and it reinforces my belief in what a great father you are. But it's just an analogy and it breaks down when you dig deeper in comparing it to our relationship with Christ.

Would you agree that God's greatest rule is to love him and our neighbor as ourself? My analogy is to show that sacrificing for our children is what we do when we love God. When you love your family and/or your neighbor you are serving and loving God. You may not see it this way, but acts of love are works. Remember when we talked about 1 Timothy 5:8 ? Paul says by not caring for your own household you have denied the faith and are WORSE than an unbeliever. How can you deny the faith and still be worthy of the Lord? Unbelievers are not saved, are they? How can anything possibly be worse than not being saved? How can you possibly be saved if you don't love God, and how can you love God without it resulting in any frutiful works? That is why Paul says that of Faith, Love and Hope, LOVE is the greatest of them all. 1 Cor 13:13

Yes. A fruitful work can indeed be possible without God.
Read the parable about the good Samaritan for a great example.

Is there such thing as a fruit that is not pleasing to God?
Can fruits result from loving God? Do the works that produced these fruits result from loving God?

There is more to walking in the Lord than just being saved.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

We are asked to endure hardship, suffer for His sake, and many other things.... and if we do, we will reign with Christ in heaven! We will expand the body of Christ, and we will not grieve the Holy Spirit. If we don't endure hardship, suffer for His sake, etc. we will grieve the Holy Spirit... but we cannot extricate ourselves from the Body of Christ, we are sealed into the Body by the Holy Spirit (2Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30). Paul often uses the term "adoption" (Ephesians 1:5) because in those days an adopted son could not be rejected. You could reject your own son, but if you adopted a son... he could not be rejected. The adopted son will get his inheritance no matter what.

The adopted son will get his inheritence if he wants it and chooses to keep it. Would if he decides to flounder it? We are sealed in the Holy Spirit, but we are not sealed in our fate. Why? Because as long as we are still alive in the flesh, we are free to reject God at any time. Can you be saved, then stop loving God, and choose something else? People can AND do everyday. Not because God disowns them or breaks his promise, but because they lose heart and change. You cannot disown your son, but your son can reject you. He can reject his inheritence and so can we with Christ. Grieving the Holy Spirit means we lose heart and follow something other than God. Paul says we shall reap only if we don't lose heart. Galatians 6:8-10
In Phillipians 3:12-13 Paul says that he 'Presses on toward' the goal. If works aren't involved, why is he pressing? He is doing something, is he not? Works. Paul is talking about how he works toward a goal. Works stem from faith, not from the desire to obey a law. If salvation is secured why does he present it as a goal rather than an unrevokable gift?

I have a question for you:
Since you believe you are saved, can you no longer further or better your relationship with Christ?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have a question for you:
Since you believe you are saved, can you no longer further or better your relationship with Christ?

Yes, I can further and better my relationship with Christ. :up:

So lets keep moving since we are running out of time. I only have a couple more questions.

The first one is...
Why do you believe that Catholicism is the correct doctrine?

Why shouldn't we be Mormon?
Why shouldn't we be a Jehovah Witness?
Why shouldn't we be Baptists?

But most specifically....

Why shouldn't we be Jewish? After all... Judaism predates Catholicism and Jesus and all the apostles were Jewish and followed the mosaic law without fail.

What makes Catholicism right and Judaism and all the other doctrines wrong?

 

[rbdeli]

Before I answer about the Church:
You answered, yes, to my question about furthering your relationship with Christ. My next questions: How does one further his relationship with Christ? And since you're already saved, why should you want to?
----------------------------------------------------------
Now, to answer the next part of your question:
We believe the Catholic Church is the original, authentic interpreter and safeguard of the teachings of Christ. Timothy 3:15. Jesus called for a visible Church – the light of the world, and one that cannot be hidden: Matthew 5:14. So, the church has characteristics that clearly identify it and distinguish it from other Churches. Christ said the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Matthew 16:18. There is only one Church that has the unbroken history to back this up. The Catholic Church is in fact, the only church which has existed since the time of Jesus. Historical documents from the First Century Early Church Fathers to prove that the Eucharist and the Church looks exactly how it does today: Early Christian Church Documents
What other institution can claim such unbroken tradition for 2,000 years? Does this look like a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1laceName>Baptist <st1laceType w:st="on">Church? A</st1laceType> <st1laceName w:st="on">Methodist</st1laceName> Church? A Jewish Church?


There are four marks of God’s <st1laceName w:st="on">One</st1laceName> <st1laceName w:st="on">True</st1laceName> <st1laceType w:st="on">Church: </st1laceType>
<st1laceType w:st="on"></st1laceType>
<st1laceType w:st="on"></st1laceType>It must be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.<O</O
<O

One,
Jesus established one Church, not many (Baptist, Methodist, etc.)<O></O>
(Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Ephesians 5:22-32 describes the Church as the bride of Christ and Christ can only have one spouse. There is one and only one set of doctrines taught and handed down by the apostles, and compete unity to the belief called by the scriptures: Phil. 1:27, 2:2.
The Church CANNOT and has NEVER changed doctrine. People often don’t believe this because they confuse disciplines and practice that CAN and DO Change. But the Church has never changed its views on doctrine, faith and morals. Look at abortion and birth control, and how these moral views have changed in other Protestant Churches. Look at the Eucharist, and other sacraments to see consistency in doctrine since the beginning. <O></O>
<O

Two.<O
The Church is holy and the guardian of Grace established by Jesus.<O></O>
Eph. 5:26. This doesn’t mean all of its members are always holy. Catholics can and do sin. But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established; the sacraments
<O</O
<O</O
Three.<O
The Church is Catholic. (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10<O></O>
Catholic means universal in Greek. Gal. 3:28<O
Missionaries are still called today to make disciples of all nations, and it is the largest organized Church in the world. Since it is his gift to ALL people, obviously it cannot be a Jewish Church. It is for everyone.
As far back as 107AD, Ignatius of Antioch used the title, Catholic, to describe the one true <ST1<st1laceType w:st="on">Church</st1laceType> of <st1laceName w:st="on">Christ. </st1laceName></ST1<O</O
<O

Four<O</O
The Church is Apostolic. <O
The Apostles are the first bishops of the Church and since the 1<SUP>st</SUP> Century we can point to an unbroken line of bishops and popes. The First Christians taught not only scripture, but through oral tradition – the same way the Catholic Church teaches today. 2 Tim. 2:2<O
Early Christian writings prove that these very first Christians were completely Catholic in their beliefs, practice and they looked to the apostles as their leaders and authentic interpreters of scripture and Christian teachings. You might disagree with what they believed and taught 2,000 years ago, but no other Church can make such a claim. This website has great historical proof of Catholicism being practiced and taught in Catholic Churches just as it is today: Early Christian History

Much more detailed explanations on the Church are found here:
Catholic Answer

Knight: Think about it. If the Catholic Church is NOT the one true Church then how could it come to pass that over a billion believers could be so confused and deceived for 2,000 years to think it is? Would Christ allow that to start happening so soon after he left, and continue on for 2,000 years? Wouldn't this be the gates of hell prevailing over the Church? Something that Christ said he would not allow to happen?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Whoa... there are tons of smilies in that post. Me thinks you are getting strange results with your copy and paste from another program? You might want to try using the "dumbed down" TOL text editor. You can select that in your TOL user CP.

I will respond later, thanks!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You answered, yes, to my question about furthering your relationship with Christ. My next questions: How does one further his relationship with Christ?

All you need to do is love and trust in Christ. The more you love and trust in Christ the more the Holy Spirit will guide your paths.

God just wants us to love Him. That's it. Do whatever you do merely because you love Him, not because you think it's a sin to not do it.

Imagine that your son died jumping into the lake to save your neighbors child from drowning. Obviously you would be devastated, but at the same time you were also very proud that your son died to save another child's life. At the funeral the father of the child your son saved approaches you and wants to offer you some cash and some season tickets to the local sports team in an effort to show his appreciation for what your son did for his son. That offer would offend you. It would sicken you that your neighbor valued what your son did for his son in such a shallow way.

That is how God views the works that people do when they do them because they think they are required to.

And since you're already saved, why should you want to?

Because I love God. :idunno:

Knight: Think about it. If the Catholic Church is NOT the one true Church then how could it come to pass that over a billion believers could be so confused and deceived for 2,000 years to think it is?

Jesus said the majority is going to hell. Truth isn't a numbers game.

Would Christ allow that to start happening so soon after he left, and continue on for 2,000 years?

So soon after He left??? What do you mean? This kind of stuff was going on when Jesus ministry was is full-bloom! Jesus spent a good deal of his time battling the religious Pharisee's of His day. And while He rebuked them He also allowed them to be wrong. God doesn't remove our will, He even allows us to be wrong.

Soon after Jesus earthly ministry was over Paul battled Peter on this very issue.

Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 “For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 “For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 “I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?​

That section of scripture is so perfectly relevant to this conversation. It could easily replicate a protestant (Paul) arguing with a Catholic (Peter).

You continue....

Wouldn't this be the gates of hell prevailing over the Church? Something that Christ said he would not allow to happen?

The church that Jesus referred to was Israel. You are not Jewish, therefore you shouldn't attempt to convince people to place themselves under the dispensation of circumcision.

Galatians 2:4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Why do you follow Peter who was given the gospel for the circumcised? The Catholic church picked the wrong apostle for their first Pope. And because of that fundamental error Catholicism is a house built on a faulty foundation.

 

[rbdeli]

Knight;1861465]All you need to do is love and trust in Christ. The more you love and trust in Christ the more the Holy Spirit will guide your paths. God just wants us to love Him. That's it. Do whatever you do merely because you love Him, not because you think it's a sin to not do it.

How do you love and trust in Christ without performing a single work? You described a work of love. Love is not just something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. True love brings fruits of sacrifice and selflesness. You stated this in your analogy below, and it's exactly the same point I've tried to make all along.

Imagine that your son died jumping into the lake to save your neighbors child from drowning. Obviously you would be devastated, but at the same time you were also very proud that your son died to save another child's life. At the funeral the father of the child your son saved approaches you and wants to offer you some cash and some season tickets to the local sports team in an effort to show his appreciation for what your son did for his son. That offer would offend you. It would sicken you that your neighbor valued what your son did for his son in such a shallow way.

But the son didn't sacrifice his life for salvation, did he? He did it out of love. But his love was a work. We agree. Love manifests itself in works. It is more than a feeling. It is more than a confession of faith? True love manifests itself in selflessness. sacrifice. These are Works. Paul says that without love, he is nothing. He says, of love, Faith and Hope, Love is the most important of the three. Your story about the boy sacrificing his life out of live validates what James says in James 2:24. There is nothing to be reconciled between Jesus, James and Paul when you are Catholic. It all fits. One Gospel. One Church. One plan for salvation through Christ. Whether or not the boy's father offers a gift of gratitude has nothing to do with the work of love performed by the son. Nor, does it disqualify or cheapen the father's appreciation or pride in his son.

That is how God views the works that people do when they do them because they think they are required to.
Because I love God. :idunno:

God knows the heart and what comes from love. What comes from requirement is not the issue and no informed Catholic believes that to be the case. Because we love God, we do works. Would someone who walks in the spirit watch a neighbor drown or starve to death without caring or wanting to do something about it? God views people who do works as one of his own. "Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. or.... Jesus will say, I never knew you..." Christ is talking about those who think they are saved, but have no love and do no works. He never knew them because faith and belief are worth nothing without love. Love isn't the result of doing something because we feel it is required. This is not the Catholic position. What the bible says about love is SO consistent within the writings of Peter, Paul and James, and I don't have to spin it into seperate plans, or twists of Christ's salvation to reconcile what the bible says.

Jesus said the majority is going to hell. Truth isn't a numbers game

.

Jesus said he desires all men to come to the truth and be saved.
1 Timothy 2:4 This is what matters most in the context of my point about confusion, and a church of over a billion people being misled for over 2,000 years. Knowing what Christ said and wants, would he allow a Church to dominate and mislead Christianity for 2,000 years? No, because he told us how he would make sure this doesn't happen: He gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter. He entrusted it to him. and said the Church was the guardian and foundation of the truth. Timothy 3:15. Christ said there was one Chuch, and Peter was that Rock on which he would build that Church. Rocks don't hand over the keys to heaven. Rocks are solid. Doesn't mean they are perfect. Just solid. Did Christ say Peter was a moldable piece of clay, wishy-washy, and not suited for entrusting the Church to his people? Or did he say he was the Rock? True, Peter was rebuked by Paul for exhibiting behavior that was unfitting. Rocks aren't perfect. What is the role, here? It didn't change his position or authority. Historically, this has happened to Popes quite often in scandals, yet the rules and doctrines of the Church remain the same today as they were then. YOur example adds validity to the authenticity of Apostolic Succession.

Now, you ask why I would follow Peter who was given the Gospel of the Jews? Catholics believe your question is built on a mistaken premise and a work of fiction: That there is a different set of rules for believing Jews. We believe this idea to be based on a modern-age interpretation of the bible (Premillenial Dispensation). Have you read any books from Catholic Scholars on this topic, and compared the two? I hope to convince you someday to look into this.

A decade ago, when I finally read the bible from front to back, you accused me of having it all wrong. At the time, I remembered thinking, wow - how come you're such an authority, and I'm not? You must have some super-smart mentor, and I don't. I was a bit taken aback, and didn't quite know how to ask this question at the time: What makes your own interpretation of the bible so authentic? Why was my interpretation different than yours, and why do you suppose you would need to recommend a book like The Plot, for me to straighten it all up? Why is the author of the Plot an authentic interpeter? If Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) is all that we need, then shouldn't we all draw the same conclusion? It goes back to my question: IF Christ desires all men to be saved, why would the bible alone lead men to so many different denominations or variations of the truth? Only one Church doesn't have that problem. IF Sola Scriptura is what drove you to Premillenial Dispensation then shouldn't we all be able to agree with the same plot of the bible just with the bible alone, and not outside influence? Catholics believe our 2,000 year-old Church is the one true Church of God, and we have the bible, traditions and unchanging history of one set of morals, faith and doctrines to support this. The bible is inheritently Catholic to us. We read the entire bible every three years just by going to Mass every Sunday. I realize many Catholics don't know their bibles, and it has made them an easy target of protestants over the last 400 years, who have been out to destroy the Church. It doesn't mean Catholics are are in the wrong Church, it just means they are targets, and haven't learned their faith well enough to defend it. I was one of them. You may not agree with the authenticity of our interpreter, but at least we have something to hang our hats on, and we do use the bible to support that interpretation of our authority. The bible and oral tradition go hand-in-hand, or how would the bible have been taught before it was printed?

It really makes no sense to debate the bible unless we can be convinced of one another's authority to interpret it. Mine is the Church. What is yours? Is your interpretation of the bible infallible? Why or why not? And if not, then why should I believe you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What makes your own interpretation of the bible so authentic?

Nothing. No secret decoder rings, no special councils, no private interpretations.... I base my theology on the evidence within God's word.

If you can show me where I am wrong... I will listen to you. :idunno:

Currently, I am convinced that my understanding of the Bible is more accurate than yours. If you can show me otherwise, I will listen. I believe that you have missed the "big picture" of the story of the Bible and because of that it's very hard for you to get any of the details correct.

Why was my interpretation different than yours, and why do you suppose you would need to recommend a book like The Plot, for me to straighten it all up?

The manuscript "the Plot" is just a book. It isn't an authority. Instead it's a Bible study that can be tested against it's source. Some people like it, while some may not and that's OK.

If anyone can show me where I (or the Plot) is in error I will gladly repent. Yet in the 12 years of doing TOL I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would make me believe "The Plot" is way off base. Furthermore, I didn't even read the Plot until long after I was already a Christian and long after I already had a good understanding of the dispensation of Grace. I read other books such as The Unsearchable Riches of Christ and I attended The Derby School of Theology and studied a little bit under Bob Hill (Biblical Answers). I happen to think the Plot is one of the more well written books on the topic but it isn't an authority and it could be in error. If you can show me where it is error I will change my position.

I believe I could be wrong and my church could be in error that's why I come to Christ with a humble attitude and always ask Him to help me stay open to correction. I am sure you feel the same way.

IF Christ desires all men to be saved, why would the bible alone lead men to so many different denominations or variations of the truth?

The Bible cannot be used to perpetuate error. Instead, the Bible can be MISused to perpetuate error.

But more importantly (and to answer your objection) God has given every man his own will. And with our will we have the freedom to be both right.... or wrong. Jesus stated that the majority would be wrong, reject Him and go to hell. Apparently men are prideful and self righteous and often use their will to reject God's will.

Only one Church doesn't have that problem. IF Sola Scriptura is what drove you to Premillenial Dispensation then shouldn't we all be able to agree with the same plot of the bible just with the bible alone, and not outside influence?

I don't buy sola scriptura. :idunno:

Catholics believe our 2,000 year-old Church is the one true Church of God, and we have the bible, traditions and unchanging history of one set of morals, faith and doctrines to support this.

"unchanging history of one set of morals" say what???? Dude... you gotta be kidding me. Up to this point you have made some good points but please don't tell me the Catholic church has "unchanging history of one set of morals" because you know that isn't true. Furthermore, there are tons of variations of Catholics, heck I was raised Catholic and I can tell you that in my own family there are stark differences in opinions.

The Mormons think they are the true church.
The Jehovah Witnesses think they are the one true church.
The Jews think they are the true church.
The Catholics think they are the one true church.

I think they are all wrong. We don't need any official church, for we are in the Body of Christ. We are in Him! We don't need any "middle men". (not that teachers are a bad thing but we don't need anyone, or any church, between us and our relationship with Christ)

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

It really makes no sense to debate the bible unless we can be convinced of one another's authority to interpret it. Mine is the Church. What is yours? Is your interpretation of the bible infallible? Why or why not? And if not, then why should I believe you?

My interpretation of the Bible IS NOT infallible. And if you can show me where I am in error (i.e., where the Bible says something that proves me wrong) I will change my theology.

Is your interpretation of the Bible infallible?

 

[rbdeli]

Knight;1862714]Nothing. No secret decoder rings, no special councils, no private interpretations.... I base my theology on the evidence within God's word.

You have just told me that your interpetation is infallible, whether you realize it or not. You don't agree with my interpretation of the bible, yet you have no authority to prove it other than to state it's your own opinion that I'm wrong. That doesn't make you wrong, but at least admit that you believe you are infallible. If you cannot tell me you are infallible, then you can never know if you're interpertation is correct, nor can you support your position with anything other than your own reasoning.

Currently, I am convinced that my understanding of the Bible is more accurate than yours. If you can show me otherwise, I will listen. I believe that you have missed the "big picture" of the story of the Bible and because of that it's very hard for you to get any of the details correct.

You are convinced of your own interpretation. IN other words, you have made yourself your own authority on interpreting God's word. I have showed you what I think the bible means, and you have showed me what you think the bible means, yet we don't agree on 75% of it. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. My Church agrees with me - that your interpretation of the bible is wrong. I side with the Church, and believe they are the protector and foundation of the truth as it says in the bible: 1 Timothy 3:15.

The manuscript "the Plot" is just a book. It isn't an authority. Instead it's a Bible study that can be tested against it's source. Some people like it, while some may not and that's OK.

Yes, but back in the late 1990's you told me this is what helped you figure it all out, and claimed it would do the same for me. It didn't work for me. I continue to believe you interpret the bible wrong, and vice versa.

If anyone can show me where I (or the Plot) is in error I will gladly repent. Yet in the 12 years of doing TOL I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would make me believe "The Plot" is way off base. Furthermore, I didn't even read the Plot until long after I was already a Christian and long after I already had a good understanding of the dispensation of Grace. I read other books such as The Unsearchable Riches of Christ and I attended The Derby School of Theology and studied a little bit under Bob Hill (Biblical Answers). I happen to think the Plot is one of the more well written books on the topic but it isn't an authority and it could be in error. If you can show me where it is error I will change my position.

I have already attempted to show you were I believe Fundamentalism is in error, and you have attempted the same with Catholicism. Both of us have yet to prove it to the other guy, but we are still trying. What does Christ say about this? Isn't there supposed to be someway to know the truth? Doesn't Paul tell us where the pillar and bulwark of the truth are? Are you telling me that it's not in our own intellect and capacity to understand it? Do you suppose only the very most intelligent can possibly make it to heaven? Did you put as much of an effort into studying Catholicism, so you could compare? Have you read a book by Scott Hahn? David Currie? Karl Keating? It's easy to dismiss Catholicism because it requires something of us. It means living our relationship with God and sacrificing some of our time. If I could have a wife and children just for my own pleasure, yet not ever have to do anything in return it sounds fun on the surface, but is it love? What does it really mean to love Christ? Just to simply say you believe him and wait to be taken up to heaven? What does Jesus say in the parable the father and his two sons?
Matthew 21:28-32

I believe I could be wrong and my church could be in error that's why I come to Christ with a humble attitude and always ask Him to help me stay open to correction. I am sure you feel the same way.

Amen. I do too, and everday I grow more convinced the truth is taught and protected by the Catholic Church.

The Bible cannot be used to perpetuate error. Instead, the Bible can be MISused to perpetuate error.

Yes. But who is doing which? I don't believe either of us have an agenda to reject God. Which religion is easier?

But more importantly (and to answer your objection) God has given every man his own will. And with our will we have the freedom to be both right.... or wrong. Jesus stated that the majority would be wrong, reject Him and go to hell. Apparently men are prideful and self righteous and often use their will to reject God's will

.

I can believe and understand why the majority of men will reject God. Because Christ requires something of us other than our own selfish impulses of free will. I don't think either of us are rejecting God, we are seeking him to the best of our abilities. Yet....
Christ says he DESIRES all men to be SAVED.
1 Timothy 2:4
Obviously, he wants us to know the truth, and he tells us how we can know the truth. It's a matter of believing what Christ says about the Church and not being influenced by outside plots and twists within scripture. When I read the New Testament the first time, I never got the impression ONCE that believing Jews had a different plan for salvation. I heard that the first time from you.

I don't buy sola scriptura. :idunno:

But didn't you tell me that you were not an infallible interpreter of God's word? How can you not buy into your own doctrine? What is it, but your own reasoning to trust in your interpretation of what the bible says?

"unchanging history of one set of morals" say what???? Dude... you gotta be kidding me. Up to this point you have made some good points but please don't tell me the Catholic church has "unchanging history of one set of morals" because you know that isn't true. Furthermore, there are tons of variations of Catholics, heck I was raised Catholic and I can tell you that in my own family there are stark differences in opinions.

This is exactly what I thought a few years ago.
Don't confuse practices and disciplines of the church, or opinions on morals by church members. Yes, thousands of Catholics don't adhere to their own faith. Look at the liberal democrats who have the gall to consider themselves Catholic and not practice what the Chuch teaches on Abortion, Gay Marriage and Birth Control. Does that make the church wrong? The fact is, the Catholic Church has never changed on one Doctrine. I used to think this too. It's not true. The Church is the Rock. Unchanged. Spare yourself the time. You will never fine one moral doctrine that has changed by the Catholic Church. People will try using Celibate Priests and numerous other practices of historical faith, but cannot come up with one moral or doctrine of faith that has changed by the Church itself.. This is Amazing after 2,000 years! When I was growing up in the 70's, a liberal sect got into our Holy Trinity Church for a short period of time..confession was no longer neccessary....they took down the Cross. That was an abomination of the Church and was very short-lived. Today, the very same beautiful Crucifix is there where I was baptised and took my first communion. The Church is the rock. It has survived through all of its trials and tribulations for 2,000 years and is virtually unchanged. This is holy, indeed.

The Mormons think they are the true church.
The Jehovah Witnesses think they are the one true church.
The Jews think they are the true church.
The Catholics think they are the one true church.
I think they are all wrong. We don't need any official church, for we are in the Body of Christ. We are in Him! We don't need any "middle men". (not that teachers are a bad thing but we don't need anyone, or any church, between us and our relationship with Christ)

Yeah, and some fundamentalist, dispensationalists think they are the Church, too. Of the 33,000 non-Catholic Chrsitian denominations, I believe they are all wrong too. There is one Church, and the Church I belong to, I believe is the very same one that existed 2,000 years ago. You belong to a Church too, but you have chosen one that is transparent. This is not what Christ wanted. He asked for a visible Church that sits on a hill: Matthew 5:14. Our Church is not a middle man...it is the bride of Christ. When men like Martin Luther decided the Church was contrary to what's in the bible; that is, it they wrongly decided it was something that is not something which is structural and visible, that is when we got these 33,000 or more different Protestant Denominations. How do you believe yours is the one right Church of the 33-some-odd-thousand? You have a Church too, you are just being clever about denying and hiding it.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
My interpretation of the Bible IS NOT infallible. And if you can show me where I am in error (i.e., where the Bible says something that proves me wrong) I will change my theology.
Is your interpretation of the Bible infallible?

Of course, there is one mediator between man and Christ Jesus. But Does Christ not have a body? When you tell someone to pray for you or someone else, are you making them a mediator? Is your bible a mediator? Are you a member of the body of Christ? Does that make you a mediator? I have showed you upteen thousand verses that I believe directly contradict your interpetation that faith-alone is all that is required to be saved, yet you continue to interpret it differently. This doesn't make you wrong, but what are we arguing about here? Interpretation. When I bring up James 2:24, you say that is for the Jews. When I show you the numerous verses of Christ commanding works of us, you say that too, is for the Jews. When Paul warns us about losing heart and faith, you tell me it has nothing to do with salvation. You have adopted a different plot of the bible, and it's not in accordance with the Church I know.

I disagree with your statement that you don't believe you're an infallible interpreter of scripture. You most certainly have made yourself your own authentic interpreter. If not, by whose authority can you preach to me that your view of the bible is the correct one in many thousand? Furthermore, if the bible is not your sole authority for trusting in your own interpretation and convincing me of the same, then what is it? Superior reasoning? I don't think it is biblical by anyone's interpretation to believe that one must have a superior intellect to be saved.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, so you can have the last word. What does it take to be a Catholic?

After your last post I am going to close this thread. Thanks for participating in it. :up:

 

[rbdeli]

Thanks from all of us Catholics for the opportunity.

Give me just a little time and I will make my closing comments to your question. :wave:

 

[rbdeli]

Final Post to Knight. Thanks!

Final Post to Knight. Thanks!

OK, so you can have the last word. What does it take to be a Catholic?

After your last post I am going to close this thread. Thanks for participating in it. :up:

Through the sacrament of baptism, a Catholic enters into the family of Christ and shares in His divine sonship as a true son or daughter of God. Baptism is no mere symbol, but a true transformation which allows us to enter into death with Christ, and rise with him to new life. After such transformation takes place, the Catholic must be a continuing member of the family of God by allowing Grace to work in his life. He must cooperate with God’s Grace by faithfully participating in the Sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, and the one time sacrament of Confirmation. A faithful Catholic strives every day to give his entire life to Christ in thanksgiving and preparation for his heavenly home. By so doing, he is a living witness to Christ in thoughts and actions. A faithful Catholic is obedient to the Body of Christ which is the Church and God’s kingdom on earth. Through faith and works, the Catholic joins with the angels and saints in Heaven to glorify God.

The following is the prayer we recite. It is called the Apostles Creed.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.