Why Calvinist, Catholics, Others, Do NOT Have Saving Faith

[Bard_the_Bowman]

No. You do not have anyone in your church who laid the foundation.

Paul was one who helped lay the foundation.

Paul was one...but not the only one. Then I have Paul.

Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Amen.

There is only one mediator.

You are avoiding the question.

How is suffering for the benefit of others and praying for others (as Scripture clearly shows) NOT mediating for others?

Please explain. Else I will conclude that you have no explanation.

There is a difference between praying for someone and praying to someone.

Please explain how praying FOR someone is not mediating? I am curious as to what you would call that then?

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

That is not your problem with you.

Nope. You are right.

But it is the problem with your idea that we do not need His Church and all we need is our Bibles and obedience.

That idea does not work for most people who have ever lived on the planet because they either couldn't read (milions even today), or couldn't afford a Bible, or there just weren't Bibles around due to a lack of printing.

So your idea is not how Jesus established His Church to function.

hahahahaha

Philip was explaining things verbally because NOTHING of the NEW TESTAMENT was written yet.

You are missing my point. My point is that Scripture shows us that your idea of just being obedient and reading the Scriptures doesn't work. Scriptures show us that some parts are difficult to understand and we need guidance. That was the point.

You are confused about the Catholic church, for it was NOT a local idea to not read the Bible without a priest or a nun around to explain. That was a universal teaching.

Prove it please. Just saying that isn't proof.

Also, I can think of good reasons to do such a thing depending on the times even if it was done. That would be to avoid what we see happened in Protestantism. Thousands upon thousands of conflicting ideas because everybody thinks they can read the Bible for themselves and be their own theologians. Or to avoid faulty translations.....kindof like most Christians today wouldn't recommend to anyone to read the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.

As for you saying confusion came after the Vatican II---I am speaking about before Vatican II. I told you that I had an older father. Those who believe in the teachings before Vatican II are called Traditional Catholics. The Catholics were told the popes were infallible. The Catholic popes said anyone outside the Catholic church would go to hell.

Prove it please.

Which popes specifically said anyone outside the Catholic Church would go to hell and in what documents? I would like some context.

John Paul had that changed at the time of the Vatican II...so much for infallible popes. John Paul changed that for ecumenical reasons. What he did was prove the "popes" were nonsense teachers.

Maybe....if you can prove that.

Can you?

You do not understand what infallibility is. That is clear. If you think you do...how about a definition? No fair looking it up.

It is about individuals.

Nope. Here is a Protestant take on it: https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-mustard-seed.html

It is about the growth of the Church.

I am not a protestant.

I never said you were. The point was that the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that the 1st century Christians didn't have a New Testament as you claimed.

They probably had even more letters and books than what we have now.

You have not proven anything.

Fine. Then please tell me the dates of authorship for the New Testament books and letters that we have in our Bibles today. Thanks.

You do not know how long it was since people wrote down the scriptures. You saying 43 years is laughable.

Fine. Then please tell me.

And please go back and read my post more carefully. I never said 43 years. So it isn't "laughable".

I asked you what books and letters would have been used in the year 43 A.D. That is 10 years after the death of Christ.

Are you kidding? The books and letters were written before 70 A.D.

Ok. When were they all written. In what years?

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

Because that is where your logic leads. (I never said that I agreed with that.)

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought your position was that only those who are obedient will be given understanding.

And we have no way of knowing who is obedient, or more or less obedient to God...so we have no way of knowing the Truth.

You personally will have to obey God and find out for yourself.

Being saved is about a personal relationship with Jesus.

Each individual person can claim that they are obedient and, therefore, understand God's word...but that is just an individual person who could very well be deceived.

Again, you need to search for yourself.

Even Solomon, Solomon the son of David had to search for himself.

But we aren't all in His Church to the same degree. Because, although we all share some beliefs, we do not share all beliefs. But that isn't the way it is in Jesus' Church.

You sure do not understand about denominations and membership.

Catholic popes who infallibly used to say that if you go against anything that the church teaches you are in defiance of the church.

Why go to any church if you are at odds in any way with it?

You can't do that with God.

Jesus is not confused about whether or not we should baptize babies, for example. He knows. And His Church knows. Because they have been doing that since the first century.

Jesus' disciples never baptized infants nor taught to do it.

In truth, when people brought them to Jesus and his disciples, the disciples turned the people away. They did not baptize them. Jesus said let the little children come to him, but he still did not have them baptized.

How do you know? Because my interpretation does not agree with your interpretation?

What authority do you have to tell me that you are right and that I am wrong?

The scriptures are plain. The scriptures are clear. Even little children can understand.

You have no measuring stick that can verify our love and obedience for God. So you really have no way of knowing that I am wrong and you are right....or the other way around....or if we are both wrong....or if we are both right.....

Jesus says we do.

 

[God's Truth]

Paul was one...but not the only one. Then I have Paul.



Amen.



You are avoiding the question.

How is suffering for the benefit of others and praying for others (as Scripture clearly shows) NOT mediating for others?

Please explain. Else I will conclude that you have no explanation.




Please explain how praying FOR someone is not mediating? I am curious as to what you would call that then?

Peace.

Catholics pray to others not just for others.

We are not to pray to anyone but only to God.

I do not avoid questions.

I did explain and because you say I did not does not make it true.

Paul suffered in his body WHEN HE HELPED LAY THE FOUNDATION.

No one now is laying any foundation because it has already been laid.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

You don't know what Jesus teaches?

Oh, you mean like John 6:53-58, for example:

"Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Don't you know that the Catholic church bows to their 'pope'? Don't you know that they kiss his feet?

According to Scripture, kissing can be used as a sign of affection and respect:

"Greet one another with a holy kiss." Romans 16:16. (See also 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14.)

We don't do that so much anymore...probably a cultural thing or thing of the times. But it is clearly biblical to do so if we wish.

When John bowed to the angel, he was told not to do that and to worship God alone. That proves that bowing to someone is wrong.

When Lot bowed to the angels, he was NOT told not to do that. They let him do that. Using your same logic, that proves that bowing to someone is NOT wrong. (Genesis 19:1) Actually, there is quite a lot of bowing to others as a sign of respect recorded in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament...and it is not condemned.

So what is the difference? The intent.

John bowed with the intent to worship.

Lot and others bowed with the intent to show respect.

Bowing isn't the issue. Worshipping something or someone that isn't Divine is the issue.

Since nobody but nobody thinks the Pope is Divine, bowing as a sign of respect is ok...according to the Bible.

Cornelius did that too to Peter and was told not to do that. Peter says he is only a man.

Acts 10:25 tells us that Cornelius was trying to worship him. That was the problem. Not bowing in respect...but trying to worship.

That's the difference.

Jacob bowed 7 times to Esau when he approached him in Genesis 33:3. No problem there because it was a sign of respect and deference. NOT worship.

Your "pope" is only a man.

C'mon man. Do you honestly think anybody worships the Pope? That is a crazy idea!

If you do not recognize scripture then that is not my fault. You said you wanted to talk about one thing at a time. Start a thread so we can talk about it there. Let's start with your 'pope'.

Ok. Let's focus on the Pope. So far we have seen that nobody worships him and he is shown respect through kissing and bowing which are both completely biblical.

I do not go by denials. I go by what is said and what is done. You have to do more than just deny. Denial is NO defense for the truth.

You have it completely backwards. You accused Catholics of worshipping something/someone other than God. The onus is on you to prove that idea and so far you haven't.

When somebody makes a claim, they have the burden of showing why their claim should believed to be true. That is the way it works.

It isn't: "Well, what I said is true unless you can do more than just deny it."

I can do little more than deny something that doesn't exist.

No, I know exactly what you mean and why you are saying what you say.

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

You probably knew that Scripture says to greet one another with a holy kiss before you complained about people kissing the Pope. And you probably knew that bowing isn't an issue, worshipping is....but you still brought those things up.

So maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Thanks for the conversation, truly. I'm afraid it got very late for me last night and I was overtired and headachy so some of what I said I know got jarbled. I apologize for that.

Perhaps we could focus only on the Pope for now and that will be more manageable.

And as a side note, I do admire your zeal for the Holy Scriptures.

And I do not know about you....but it feels to me like we are the only two left in this thread and nobody has complained about a derailing...so we could probably just keep rolling with our discussion of the Pope here.

Peace to you.

 

[God's Truth]

Nope. You are right.

But it is the problem with your idea that we do not need His Church and all we need is our Bibles and obedience.

That idea does not work for most people who have ever lived on the planet because they either couldn't read (milions even today), or couldn't afford a Bible, or there just weren't Bibles around due to a lack of printing.

So your idea is not how Jesus established His Church to function.




You are missing my point. My point is that Scripture shows us that your idea of just being obedient and reading the Scriptures doesn't work. Scriptures show us that some parts are difficult to understand and we need guidance. That was the point.



Prove it please. Just saying that isn't proof.

Also, I can think of good reasons to do such a thing depending on the times even if it was done. That would be to avoid what we see happened in Protestantism. Thousands upon thousands of conflicting ideas because everybody thinks they can read the Bible for themselves and be their own theologians. Or to avoid faulty translations.....kindof like most Christians today wouldn't recommend to anyone to read the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.



Prove it please.

Which popes specifically said anyone outside the Catholic Church would go to hell and in what documents? I would like some context.



Maybe....if you can prove that.

Can you?

You do not understand what infallibility is. That is clear. If you think you do...how about a definition? No fair looking it up.



Nope. Here is a Protestant take on it: https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-mustard-seed.html

It is about the growth of the Church.



I never said you were. The point was that the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that the 1st century Christians didn't have a New Testament as you claimed.





Fine. Then please tell me the dates of authorship for the New Testament books and letters that we have in our Bibles today. Thanks.





Fine. Then please tell me.

And please go back and read my post more carefully. I never said 43 years. So it isn't "laughable".

I asked you what books and letters would have been used in the year 43 A.D. That is 10 years after the death of Christ.




Ok. When were they all written. In what years?

Peace.

You are a Catholic and do not even understand common sense about joining any group.

Don't ask me for proof when common sense is the proof.

You need to look it up for yourself since you are merely denying sense that is common.

If you have popes that make rules and regulations, but then you say those could be wrong is proof that you cannot defend your denomination.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

You personally will have to obey God and find out for yourself.

Being saved is about a personal relationship with Jesus.



Again, you need to search for yourself.

Even Solomon, Solomon the son of David had to search for himself.



You sure do not understand about denominations and membership.

Catholic popes who infallibly used to say that if you go against anything that the church teaches you are in defiance of the church.

Why go to any church if you are at odds in any way with it?

You can't do that with God.



Jesus' disciples never baptized infants nor taught to do it.

In truth, when people brought them to Jesus and his disciples, the disciples turned the people away. They did not baptize them. Jesus said let the little children come to him, but he still did not have them baptized.


The scriptures are plain. The scriptures are clear. Even little children can understand.



Jesus says we do.

I am gonna pass on commenting on your post above because it feels like so many different topics.

Infant baptism, the perspicuity of Scripture and denominationalism would be good topics. But too much for at one time.

Let's focus on the Pope as you requested.

Is that ok with you?

 

[God's Truth]

Oh, you mean like John 6:53-58, for example:

"Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”



According to Scripture, kissing can be used as a sign of affection and respect:

"Greet one another with a holy kiss." Romans 16:16. (See also 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14.)

We don't do that so much anymore...probably a cultural thing or thing of the times. But it is clearly biblical to do so if we wish.



When Lot bowed to the angels, he was NOT told not to do that. They let him do that. Using your same logic, that proves that bowing to someone is NOT wrong. (Genesis 19:1) Actually, there is quite a lot of bowing to others as a sign of respect recorded in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament...and it is not condemned.

So what is the difference? The intent.

John bowed with the intent to worship.

Lot and others bowed with the intent to show respect.

Bowing isn't the issue. Worshipping something or someone that isn't Divine is the issue.

Since nobody but nobody thinks the Pope is Divine, bowing as a sign of respect is ok...according to the Bible.



Acts 10:25 tells us that Cornelius was trying to worship him. That was the problem. Not bowing in respect...but trying to worship.

That's the difference.

Jacob bowed 7 times to Esau when he approached him in Genesis 33:3. No problem there because it was a sign of respect and deference. NOT worship.



C'mon man. Do you honestly think anybody worships the Pope? That is a crazy idea!




Ok. Let's focus on the Pope. So far we have seen that nobody worships him and he is shown respect through kissing and bowing which are both completely biblical.



You have it completely backwards. You accused Catholics of worshipping something/someone other than God. The onus is on you to prove that idea and so far you haven't.

When somebody makes a claim, they have the burden of showing why their claim should believed to be true. That is the way it works.

It isn't: "Well, what I said is true unless you can do more than just deny it."

I can do little more than deny something that doesn't exist.



Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

You probably knew that Scripture says to greet one another with a holy kiss before you complained about people kissing the Pope. And you probably knew that bowing isn't an issue, worshipping is....but you still brought those things up.

So maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Thanks for the conversation, truly. I'm afraid it got very late for me last night and I was overtired and headachy so some of what I said I know got jarbled. I apologize for that.

Perhaps we could focus only on the Pope for now and that will be more manageable.

And as a side note, I do admire your zeal for the Holy Scriptures.

And I do not know about you....but it feels to me like we are the only two left in this thread and nobody has complained about a derailing...so we could probably just keep rolling with our discussion of the Pope here.

Peace to you.

You are making excuses on why your choice denomination kisses the feet of their pope.

That is NOT the holy kiss Paul was speaking of, it is the worshiping kiss on the feet that was rebuked, and you will not come to the truth about it.

Cornelius bowed in reverence, and so did John to the angel---and it is WRONG to do. Period.

No if, and, but, or maybe.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

You are a Catholic and do not even understand common sense about joining any group.

Don't ask me for proof when common sense is the proof.

You need to look it up for yourself since you are merely denying sense that is common.

Why do you avoid some of my questions to you?

Like when were the books of the New Testament written and what did the Christians use in 43 A.D?

I'm not sure what you were saying about common sense but I hope it wasn't for those two questions because an appeal to common sense does not answer those questions. An appeal to common sense for those questions is avoiding the question.

Never mind for now, because that is a different topic, but if we are going to have a discussion I would appreciate if you would answer direct questions that I give to you and I will try to do the same.

If you have popes that make rules and regulations, but then you say those could be wrong is proof that you cannot defend your denomination.

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that.

But your statement clearly reveals that you are confused about what infallibility actually is.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

I am gonna pass on commenting on your post above because it feels like so many different topics.

Infant baptism, the perspicuity of Scripture and denominationalism would be good topics. But too much for at one time.

Let's focus on the Pope as you requested.

Is that ok with you?

That is okay with me.

By the way, please do not read any anger or unfriendliness in what I am saying.

I am so glad to be speaking about God with you.

As for speaking about things that are not of the topic of the thread, there are enemies all around and they might want to use derailment as an excuse to cause trouble and have someone banned.

It is easy to make a new thread.

 

[God's Truth]

Why do you avoid some of my questions to you?

Like when were the books of the New Testament written and what did the Christians use in 43 A.D?

I'm not sure what you were saying about common sense but I hope it wasn't for those two questions because an appeal to common sense does not answer those questions. An appeal to common sense for those questions is avoiding the question.

Never mind for now, because that is a different topic, but if we are going to have a discussion I would appreciate if you would answer direct questions that I give to you and I will try to do the same.



Did I say that? I don't remember saying that.

But your statement clearly reveals that you are confused about what infallibility actually is.

Peace.

I am not whatever you say I am, and I do not do whatever you say I do.

I am not confused, and I do not avoid questions.

I could say the same about you, but that is not how I want our discussion to go.

I will make a new thread and call it The Catholic Pope.

Is that okay with you?

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

You are making excuses on why your choice denomination kisses the feet of their pope.

No I am not. I merely showed that greeting others with a holy kiss is biblical. Paul says so repeatedly.

I'll grant you that in our modern times, depending on where one lives in the world, I suppose, people do that to a greater or lesser degree. Isn't it the French or somewhere where they alway kiss (or semi-kiss) both cheeks of the people that they greet. And both people do that at the same time.

Anyways, clearly it is a biblical practice.

That is NOT the holy kiss Paul was speaking of,

You don't know that because Bible doesn't say where the kiss was....

it is the worshiping kiss on the feet that was rebuked,

The Bible doesn't say that. You are making that up. The Bible just says it was worship that was condemned.

It doesn't say a "worshipping kiss". You made that up too. That idea is nowhere found in the Bible that I know of. I've never heard of a "worshipping kiss".

I think you have a preconceived notion that to kiss a person's feet is worship. But the Bible nowhere says that.

Where did you get that idea?

and you will not come to the truth about it.

You are starting to make things up to fit your ideas.

The Bible shows that bowing and kissing can be used as signs of affection, love, and respect.

Worshipping a creature is forbidden.

Since nobody believes the Pope is God, there is no worship occurring.

You are simply wrong but you are refusing to admit it.

Cornelius bowed in reverence, and so did John to the angel---and it is WRONG to do. Period.

No if, and, but, or maybe.

The Bible disagrees with you:

"As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him." (Acts 10:25 NKJV)

"Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things." (Revelation 22:8 NKJV)

So yeah. That is a pretty big "if, and or but".

Your interpretation of those verses is clearly wrong because you said they bowed in reverence (implying it wasn't worship).

But the words of the text clearly say that both men bowed with the intent to worship.

Do you deny that?

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

I am not whatever you say I am, and I do not do whatever you say I do.

I am not confused, and I do not avoid questions.

Then why didn't you answer my questions about when the books of the New Testament were written and which ones were used in 43 A.D.?

I could say the same about you, but that is not how I want our discussion to go.

Well, me either. I would like us both to answer direct questions.

I will make a new thread and call it The Catholic Pope.

Is that okay with you?

Sure. That will work. But I will try to focus my discussion with you.

I have seen things degenerate quickly with some threads and it gets down to name-calling, loss of reason, and meanness pretty fast sometimes.

Not that it will. But, well, that is a possibility.

I'll look for your thread. But I gotta go do some chores for a little bit. So maybe in a bit.

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

That is okay with me.

By the way, please do not read any anger or unfriendliness in what I am saying.

I am so glad to be speaking about God with you.

As for speaking about things that are not of the topic of the thread, there are enemies all around and they might want to use derailment as an excuse to cause trouble and have someone banned.

It is easy to make a new thread.

Ok. Cool!

 

[jsanford108]

No, I spoke the truth.



The scriptures do not say they made a church building.

Not only that, as I said before, there would be NO church like the Catholic church, no man up front calling himself the father, no statues with people bowing to them and incensing them, no prayers to Mary...

All those things are against God's Truth.



They shared the books and the LETTERS.

Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters.


That does not make sense.
I am speaking about the written Word of God.
I am speaking about spiritual things.



So now you are questioning the Bible?

1.) the Scriptures say "The Church in..." Implying a singular location/organization.

2.) What evidence do you have to support that there were no churches like the Catholic Church?

3.) How are the practices of Catholics "against God's Truth?"

4.) The letters were passed around, yes. But there was no way that they all could have accessed them within a year, and study them. Also, what "books" did they have?

5.) I am not questioning the Bible; I am questioning you. How do you, God's Truth, know the Bible is authoritative?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Robert Hate


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[God's Truth]

Robert Hate


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

intohate

 

[Robert Pate]

Robert Hate


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Yes, Robert hates all doctrines that corrupt the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 4:4.

 

[meshak]

intohate

so clever.

 

[God's Truth]

so clever.

Thank you. They do make it easy to see it though.