PDA

View Full Version : Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope



Pages : 1 [2]

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 08:24 PM
I am not trying to "impress" you. I merely show the application of scripture. I'll let the spirit do the impressing as to whether it is true or not.

You make a simple topic complicated. That was never Jesus way. Sory.


Well, that is not quite true now is it? Actually, the Bible makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrha were pretty darn bad, and I don't think they were "Protestant nations." Homosexuality was obviously around at the time of Moses since it is condemned in the Torah, and can hardly be blamed on the Protestant nations - nor can Prostitution. Abortion is a new creature created by the desire of industrialized nations to live comfortably and not be "inconvenienced." It is heavily present in Russia and China without the influence of "Protestantism." Indeed the opposite - a complete rejection of Christianity by "communists." So it is more a function of modern selfishness of more affluent nations rather than a product of "Protestantism."

I never stated Protestantism created abortion nor homosexuality.

I said Protestant countries PROMOTE both more than anyone else, specifically the US and Europe.


I have seen many countries which allegedly became Catholic which retain many pagan beliefs and practices. An example is in "Catholic" Latin America, which continues to hold many traditional pagan beliefs, and therefore has never been converted to Christ. Miners still have their pagan idol god in the mines which they pay homage to in order to appease the god of the mountain, etc.
So how much these nations really "promote the gospel" is totally up for grabs.
Let's take a look at Brazil which is traditionally a Catholic country.
"Every year an estimated 1.4 million Brazilian girls and women take the law into their hands, and often put their health at risk, to terminate their pregnancies. This gives Brazil an abortion rate much higher than that of the United States, even though one country allows the procedure and the other all but bans it." So I suppose you are going to blame this on Protestantism too?
That pertains to alleged prophets including the Roman pontiff.
May I suggest you do so and see how the Roman pontiff stacks up over the centuries?

With all due respect your anecdotal evidence never trumps real statistics. The homicide rate in Europe and the US is that of a major war, 10 times more than Latin America. Furthermore, homosexuality is not generally accepted and not promoted either.

As far as the quote about abortion in Brazil, might that per chance be from the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood that sells babies parts after cutting them up into pieces so they can increase their bottom line already floated by a half a billion dollars a year? They are also looking to expand to new markets in Latina America because there is a lot of money to be made from murdering children.

Latin Americas social indicators are real Christian fruit, not like the ones in the US and Europe promoted to us by the godless UN. There is a reason for that and it is not from God either.

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 09:02 PM
You make a simple topic complicated. That was never Jesus way. Sory.
It wasn't?
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.



I never stated Protestantism created abortion nor homosexuality.

I said Protestant countries PROMOTE both more than anyone else, specifically the US and Europe.In my quote of you you said they are "the source" of these things, and I showed otherwise. You are not teaching fact but merely promoting your opinion.


With all due respect your anecdotal evidence never trumps real statistics. The homicide rate in Europe and the US is that of a major war, 10 times more than Latin America. Furthermore, homosexuality is not generally accepted and not promoted either.
If by "homicide rate" you mean abortion, I gave you facts that abortion per capita is higher in a "Catholic" country than the US.

As far as the quote about abortion in Brazil, might that per chance be from the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood that sells babies parts after cutting them up into pieces so they can increase their bottom line already floated by a half a billion dollars a year? They are also looking to expand to new markets in Latina America because there is a lot of money to be made from murdering children.

No, actually it is from an old Chicago Tribune story:
November 01, 2006|By Colin McMahon | Colin McMahon,CHICAGO TRIBUNE

Just do an internet search. The info is there for all to see.


Latin Americas social indicators are real Christian fruit, not like the ones in the US and Europe promoted to us by the godless UN. There is a reason for that and it is not from God either.
I am not here to necessarily defend Protestantism, but I think it apparent that you are playing fast and loose with the facts, and so am merely pointing out that you should be accountable. This is the day of evil spoken of by our Lord, so yes there is much evil in the world, and darkness reigns. But as in the days of Noah, so shall the end be.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 09:13 PM
It wasn't?
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

In my quote of you you said they are "the source" of these things, and I showed otherwise. You are not teaching fact but merely promoting your opinion.

If by "homicide rate" you mean abortion, I gave you facts that abortion per capita is higher in a "Catholic" country than the US.


No, actually it is from an old Chicago Tribune story:
November 01, 2006|By Colin McMahon | Colin McMahon,CHICAGO TRIBUNE

Just do an internet search. The info is there for all to see.

I am not here to necessarily defend Protestantism, but I think it apparent that you are playing fast and loose with the facts, and so am merely pointing out that you should be accountable. This is the day of evil spoken of by our Lord, so yes there is much evil in the world, and darkness reigns. But as in the days of Noah, so shall the end be.

The claim is from the Guttmacher Institute, the propaganda arm of the company that cuts children up for profit and sells their body parts. They lied to have abortion legalized in the US and are doing their best to lie to have it legalized in Latin America, where it is mostly illegal. Those are the facts.

The US and Europe kill their children at rates only seen during major wars and not only allows homosexual marriage they indoctrinate children. America is the number one source of pornography in the world. Worse is the US is promoting this garbage in real Christian countries.

"By their fruits they are known".

meshak
July 25th, 2015, 09:17 PM
I said Protestant countries PROMOTE both more than anyone else, specifically the US and Europe.

You don't seem to realize that Mexico and Philippine are Catholic countries. Are they godly nation? I don't think so.

It is filled with criminals. It is dangerous place to visit.

But I am not for protestants. I don't believe they are godly Christians either.

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 09:26 PM
The claim is from the Guttmacher Institute, the propaganda arm of the company that cuts children up for profit and sells their body parts. They lied to have abortion legalized in the US and are doing their best to lie to have it legalized in Latin America, where it is mostly illegal. Those are the facts.
Um. No they are not. The only source mentioned in the article was a Catholic one:

Catholics for the Right to Choose, a group working to have abortion de-criminalized, estimates that each year in Brazil 250,000 women suffer health complications from secret abortions. Across Latin America, abortion-rights groups attribute 10,000 deaths a year to unsafe abortion.



The US and Europe kill their children at rates only seen during major wars and not only allows homosexual marriage they indoctrinate children. America is the number one source of pornography in the world. Worse is the US is promoting this garbage in real Christian countries.
Again, baseless accusations by yourself. While I am not defending American policy one can hardly call Pres Obama, for example, a "Protestant."

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 11:03 PM
You don't seem to realize that Mexico and Philippine are Catholic countries. Are they godly nation? I don't think so.

It is filled with criminals. It is dangerous place to visit.

But I am not for protestants. I don't believe they are godly Christians either.

There are many other Catholic countries, especially in Latin America.

The US and Europe are very dangerous to visit if you haven't been born, especially if you are a minority. In fact only half of the blacks that are conceived make it out of the womb without being chopped up in the US.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 11:06 PM
Um. No they are not. The only source mentioned in the article was a Catholic one:




Again, baseless accusations by yourself. While I am not defending American policy one can hardly call Pres Obama, for example, a "Protestant."

The article does not have a reference but anyone that has been part of the pro life movement and investigation knows where the number comes from. You are actually using the same diabolical trick that Planned Parenthood uses here in Latina America so they can have abortion legalized so they can cut children up and sell their body parts.

America's fruits are rotten. Conspicuously it is a mostly Protestant nation, or used to be. One thing for sure it has never been Catholic so that is why children are so easily killed.

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 12:51 AM
The US and Europe are very dangerous to visit if you haven't been born, especially if you are a minority. In fact only half of the blacks that are conceived make it out of the womb without being chopped up in the US.Oh my, the evil white Protestants are forcing black mothers to get their babies chopped up!
You do know how ridiculous this sounds?
In the US about 1.1 million abortions were performed in 2011, at a rate of 16.9 abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age, down from a peak of 29.3 per 1,000 in 1981.
The vast majority of these were among blacks and Catholic minority hispanics rather than white Protestants, so again your little blame game falls flat.
I was raised Protestant, and the idea of abortion in my Protestant church was basically abhorrent. When I converted to the non "Protestant" LDS church, the idea of abortion was still abhorrent, and basically remains that way except in cases of endangering the mother's life or perhaps mental well being such as in cases of rape in which case the church believes the considerate prayer of the mother can be considered.
Nor does the Church of Jesus Christ take a stance against contraception.
Now in Europe I'm sure this is different, but that is not the US so it is rather unfair of you to blame all these evils on "Protestants" as you repeatedly try to do - especially when the statistics simply do not support your egregious generalizations.

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 01:07 AM
The article does not have a reference but anyone that has been part of the pro life movement and investigation knows where the number comes from. You are actually using the same diabolical trick that Planned Parenthood uses here in Latina America so they can have abortion legalized so they can cut children up and sell their body parts.I'm not doing any "trick" but am simply quoting a 10 year old article bud. I really don't know where they got their information except for the one Catholic source they mentioned. Nor am I generally "pro-choice" with the possible exceptions noted above. I do not agree with abortionists that a fetus has no rights under the law, and I agree that selling aborted baby parts as Planned Parenthood is doing is despicable.


America's fruits are rotten. Conspicuously it is a mostly Protestant nation, or used to be. One thing for sure it has never been Catholic so that is why children are so easily killed.
Again, statistics don't support your innuendo that Protestants are to blame. I believe statistics will show that most Republicans are Protestant and are pro-life. You are simply making unfounded innuendos and conclusions. Both non-Protestant and even Catholic nations have substantial abortion rates showing it is not strictly a "Protestant" evil as you are tying to suggest.

turbosixx
July 26th, 2015, 05:11 AM
Jesus died for you bro and you already know it. God's love is so immense for He will not hold it against you nor anyone else if you are part of a church that has an incomplete doctrine. He is looking for people that love Him and their brother.

Nonetheless, if your heart is uneasy you need to investigate the RCC.

My heart is far from uneasy, but I do want to challenge what I understand to be truth. When I compare what I see in scripture and the rcc, they don't look the same. I'm just trying to challenge others version of truth as well.

As far as incomplete doctrine, what is it that is not in the canon that I NEED to adhere to? The bible is either sufficient or insufficient.

turbosixx
July 26th, 2015, 05:16 AM
You follow the mere interpretations and opinions of the human teachers
Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

If you believe what you are telling me, then how do YOU know. You can't know you are following truth because you can't understand the bible to determine if what these men are telling you is truth. You therefore, are putting your trust and faith in men. They will not be able to answer for you on judgment day, THEN you will have to answer for yourself.

turbosixx
July 26th, 2015, 05:25 AM
They were baptized in Christ's one historic Church, just as people are today baptized in Christ's one historic Catholic Church. Same Church. In any case, I've already discussed the development and growth of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) over the past two millennia.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The steps these people took in Acts to be added are NOT THE SAME steps that the rcc teach and practice. It has been added to by men and changed by men. People who follow the steps in scripture are added to Christ's church. People who follow rcc steps are added to the catholic church. It can't be different and be the same.

turbosixx
July 26th, 2015, 05:30 AM
What wealth and power bro??

We Catholics do more for the poor around the world than all other Christian religion combined (by my estimates).

Just because we have some fancy Cardinal in Rome that like to go around in exotic clothes does not reflect the totality of our religious and believers. We are a church of poor people because GOD LOVES THE POOR.

The whole claim about the leaders of the RCC being super rich is an empty myth. On the other hand name one mega pastor in the US and lets talk about the millions they make.

I'm not saying the rcc hasn't helped the poor but they help themselves first.

Here is a recent headline: How the ‘Bishop of Bling’ spent $43 million renovating this house

Where did this guy get this kind of money?

This is one recent thing that has come out. The rcc is great at keeping secrets and hiding skeletons.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 09:22 AM
Oh my, the evil white Protestants are forcing black mothers to get their babies chopped up!
You do know how ridiculous this sounds?
In the US about 1.1 million abortions were performed in 2011, at a rate of 16.9 abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age, down from a peak of 29.3 per 1,000 in 1981.
The vast majority of these were among blacks and Catholic minority hispanics rather than white Protestants, so again your little blame game falls flat.
I was raised Protestant, and the idea of abortion in my Protestant church was basically abhorrent. When I converted to the non "Protestant" LDS church, the idea of abortion was still abhorrent, and basically remains that way except in cases of endangering the mother's life or perhaps mental well being such as in cases of rape in which case the church believes the considerate prayer of the mother can be considered.
Nor does the Church of Jesus Christ take a stance against contraception.
Now in Europe I'm sure this is different, but that is not the US so it is rather unfair of you to blame all these evils on "Protestants" as you repeatedly try to do - especially when the statistics simply do not support your egregious generalizations.

You statistics do not support your claim that Protestant nations don't kill their children less than Catholic one but do point out that minorities are being targeted, especially young girls who are told the lie that they do not have a living child inside them.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 09:24 AM
I'm not doing any "trick" but am simply quoting a 10 year old article bud. I really don't know where they got their information except for the one Catholic source they mentioned. Nor am I generally "pro-choice" with the possible exceptions noted above. I do not agree with abortionists that a fetus has no rights under the law, and I agree that selling aborted baby parts as Planned Parenthood is doing is despicable.


Again, statistics don't support your innuendo that Protestants are to blame. I believe statistics will show that most Republicans are Protestant and are pro-life. You are simply making unfounded innuendos and conclusions. Both non-Protestant and even Catholic nations have substantial abortion rates showing it is not strictly a "Protestant" evil as you are tying to suggest.

So what you are trying to tell me is if you see a claim in print it must somehow be correct??

With all due respect I do research for a living. Your claim is not valid without a reference. I know where the numbers come from and have told you 2 times already and yet you persist playing with the devil. In fact that is one of the reasons America has fallen so hard, Protestants desire to discredit Catholics or even other Protestants who do not share the same doctrine overwhelms their love of Christ.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 09:29 AM
My heart is far from uneasy, but I do want to challenge what I understand to be truth. When I compare what I see in scripture and the rcc, they don't look the same. I'm just trying to challenge others version of truth as well.

As far as incomplete doctrine, what is it that is not in the canon that I NEED to adhere to? The bible is either sufficient or insufficient.

Please remember bro the Bible was not readily available in complete form for centuries. I know there are a lot of claims but conspicuously there is no proof only conjecture. The canon (doctrine) was developed along with the Bible from the beginning. As someone who became Protestant because of such claims I investigated any and all supposed claims about doctrine against the Bible and understanding the "spirit" or intention of said and it has never failed the test. And why would it? It has never been separate from the Bible nor the community that wrote it.

turbosixx
July 26th, 2015, 09:50 AM
Please remember bro the Bible was not readily available in complete form for centuries. I know there are a lot of claims but conspicuously there is no proof only conjecture. The canon (doctrine) was developed along with the Bible from the beginning. As someone who became Protestant because of such claims I investigated any and all supposed claims about doctrine against the Bible and understanding the "spirit" or intention of said and it has never failed the test. And why would it? It has never been separate from the Bible nor the community that wrote it.

That is what I see. Man feels they are sticking to the spirit or intention but in actuality they are perverted the truth.


Matt. 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 09:53 AM
That is what I see. Man feels they are sticking to the spirit or intention but in actuality they are perverted the truth.


Matt. 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

I have been on both sides of the fence and can say with confidence the RCC has been the most faithful to the Gospel that we wrote.

turbosixx
July 26th, 2015, 10:46 AM
I have been on both sides of the fence and can say with confidence the RCC has been the most faithful to the Gospel that we wrote.

I haven't been on the other side, but what I have seen is enough to know the rcc is not measuring up to scripture. Here is one example of what I see.

Jesus taught he apostle to preach the gospel and baptize the believers. We see them do exactly that.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.


It's easy to see and understand that is how one is added to the body of Christ, baptize the believers.

Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

The rcc baptizes infants who are incapable of being believers.

What am I to believe?

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 10:52 AM
You statistics do not support your claim that Protestant nations don't kill their children less than Catholic one but do point out that minorities are being targeted, especially young girls who are told the lie that they do not have a living child inside them.
At least I gave some statistics. You have given zilch, nada my friend - except for your unfounded opinion, which I have provided at least some statistics to show are unfounded. I don't share your opinion that minorities are being especially "targeted." Such is especially not so in Europe. I do happen to dislike the sex ed program in public schools and believe that the epidemic of unwed mothers and abortions began and coincided with sex ed in the schools. But I don't believe this was a result of "Protestant" intervention either. I believe the sex ed program was essentially pushed through by non-Protestant liberals and feminists who infiltrated the education dept. Most Protestants reacted negatively to the sex ed program. The point being that as a Christian parent I taught my own children the birds and the bees, and why they should abstain from sex until they get married. Without such guidance it is apparent that minority children were more influenced by the sex education program which offered no moral or ethical teaching along with all their hormone-promoting talk of intercourse and pictures. Sadly, in this sense I am forced to agree with you, but the children in public schools whether they be Protestant or otherwise were all equally subjected to this sex education without a moral compass, so how do you believe the minorities are "targeted?"
Your bald-faced assertions trying to blame Protestants for the ills of the world do not add up.
It is widely accepted there is a lot of abortion in Brazil, but it is illegal there so no official statistics are kept. It doesn't matter whose statistics you rely on, they are going to be an estimate. But my sister-in-law from Brazil knows about it. The "abortion pill" is largely relied upon there.

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 11:17 AM
So what you are trying to tell me is if you see a claim in print it must somehow be correct??

With all due respect I do research for a living. Your claim is not valid without a reference.I gave a reference which you did not care for, and instead accused me of lying or trying to trick you.

I know where the numbers come from and have told you 2 times already and yet you persist playing with the devil. In fact that is one of the reasons America has fallen so hard, Protestants desire to discredit Catholics or even other Protestants who do not share the same doctrine overwhelms their love of Christ.

I think you have a deep religious bias which you refuse to give up. This insistence of yours that abortion statistics all seem to come from the Guttmacher Institute is simply not valid.
Here is another:
(CNSNews.com) – In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
For Hispanic women, there were 22,917 abortions in New York City in 2012, which is 31% of the total abortions.

Black and Hispanic abortions combined, 54,245 babies, is 73% of the total abortions in the Big Apple in 2012.
The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics.
The CDC also does abortion statistics which are independent of Planned Parenthood.
None of them support your insistence that Protestants are leading the charge for abortion. I will also remind you that abortion in Russia and China is also quite high, and there has nothing to do with Protestantism but rather "Communism."

Cruciform
July 26th, 2015, 12:17 PM
Actually the Church of Jesus Christ is as old as Adam...
Yes---however the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is not. Rather, it was invented by Joseph Smith less than 200 years ago.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints simply represents the last of these restorations.
No supposed "Great Apostasy (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/total-apostasy-big-issue-dividing.html)" has ever occurred in Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---nor could it---unless Jesus Christ himself is a liar (Mt. 16:18). And, thus, no such "restorations" have ever been required. This is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Mormon belief system, though there are certainly many others as well.

See also, this (http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/mormon.pdf) and this (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ mormon2.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 12:33 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]Yes---however the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is not. Rather, it was invented by Joseph Smith less than 200 years ago.
The Lord has had to restore His priesthood several times to the earth, and had to one more time in order that His word might be fulfilled as pointed out in Acts that all things would be restored before Christ's return.


No supposed "Great Apostasy (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/total-apostasy-big-issue-dividing.html)" has ever occurred in Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---nor could it---unless Jesus Christ himself is a liar (Mt. 16:18). And, thus, no such "restorations" have ever been required. This is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Mormon belief system, though there are certainly many others as well.Christ's words didn't fail. The stone of revelation has been fulfilled even by apostasy in his own church on the earth which He Himself prophesied would occur in the darkness in which no man could work. Peter is not the only rock of revelation the Lord has my friend, but your "pope" is not one, nor is he among the last of the 144,000 prophets to be sealed by the end of the sixth seal in Revelation 7.

Cruciform
July 26th, 2015, 12:33 PM
I merely show the application of scripture. I'll let the spirit do the impressing as to whether it is true or not.

QUESTION: Would the Spirit ever affirm or endorse a human interpretation of Scripture that failed to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), yes or no?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 26th, 2015, 12:55 PM
The Lord has had to restore His priesthood several times to the earth...
Already categorically refuted in Post #272 above.


Christ's words didn't fail. The stone of revelation has been fulfilled even by apostasy in his own church on the earth...
Already decisively answered in a previous post above. I recommend a careful and thorough study of this (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm), this (http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php), this (http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/protestant-scholars-on-mt-1616-19.html), this (http://www.timstaples.com/?p=blog&id=217), and this (http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-papacy-in-scripture-no-rocks-required). You may want to make copies to consider at your own pace. Be well.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 04:26 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]
QUESTION: Would the Spirit ever affirm or endorse a human interpretation of Scripture that failed to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), yes or no?
1. It depends which spirit is doing the affirming.
I pray in secret to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ.
2. And yes, the Holy Spirit will affirm the truth, and not necessarily interpretations made by churches. He will also affirm the will of the Lord even though that does not necessarily comport with the ideas of men.

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 04:37 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]
Already decisively answered in a previous post above. I recommend a careful and thorough study of this (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm), this (http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php), this (http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/protestant-scholars-on-mt-1616-19.html), this (http://www.timstaples.com/?p=blog&id=217), and this (http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-papacy-in-scripture-no-rocks-required). You may want to make copies to consider at your own pace. Be well.
Making copies would be a complete waste of my time, as those contain virtually nothing about what being the rock meant. The Lord is the rock of our salvation - why? Why is Jesus the chief cornerstone? I proffer because He is steadfast and unchanging in His revelation to us, and changes not in His righteousness. As the chief cornerstone Jesus was the revelation of the Father to us. Thus, what Jesus is telling Peter is that you are going to be of that rock and follow me to the cross. That is the stone on which the kingdom will be built - not your earthly church - sorry. :)

Cruciform
July 26th, 2015, 05:42 PM
1. It depends which spirit is doing the affirming.
I assumed you were referring to the Holy Spirit of the New Testament.


2. And yes, the Holy Spirit will affirm the truth, and not necessarily interpretations made by churches.
Does that, then, include the LDS church?
Also, does that include the documents of the New Testament, which are themselves "interpretations made by a Church"?

He will also affirm the will of the Lord even though that does not necessarily comport with the ideas of men.
How, exactly, would He do this...?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Dona Bate
July 26th, 2015, 06:08 PM
Making copies would be a complete waste of my time,....Course it would be! Why?....The book of Mormon makes THIS blasphemous statement against the Holy Bible.

From the introduction of the Book of Mormon:
"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible... ...and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."...
"Concerning this record the*Prophet Joseph Smith*said: "I told the brethren that the BOOK OF MORMON WAS THE MOST CORRECT OF ANY BOOK ON EARTH, AND THE KEYSTONE OF OUR RELIGION, AND A MAN WOULD GET NEARER TO GOD BY ABIDING BY ITS PRECEPTS, THAN ANY OTHER BOOK."

The BOM clearly elevates itself above the Bible.

How can the LDS Church even use the Bible at all if they teach it is inferior to the Book of Mormon?


God Bless!

Cruciform
July 26th, 2015, 06:18 PM
Making copies would be a complete waste of my time, as those contain virtually nothing about what being the rock meant.
Your tacit claim to know and comprehend the content of my posted sources without having read them is noted, and rejected as patented nonsense. Here you merely beg the question in favor of your present bias toward the Mormon belief system. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: "A Mormon has to be very careful of what he reads." Your deliberate avoidance of relevant material is noted, as is the lack of intellectual integrity that stands behind it.


...what Jesus is telling Peter is that you are going to be of that rock and follow me to the cross.
Categorically refuted here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm), here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), here (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-rock-of-matthew-1618-st-peter-or-his.html), here (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/pope-peter-part-v-upon-this-rock.html), and here (http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/RockPeterOrConfession.doc).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 06:54 PM
I assumed you were referring to the Holy Spirit of the New Testament.
You were the one who asked.



[FONT="Georgia"]Does that, then, include the LDS church?Let me make something clear here. The scriptures contain the express will of the Lord. If someone makes a statement from the pulpit, it may or may not be directly from the Lord. If they represent that the spirit revealed it or that the Lord spoke this to them, I would generally grant it more weight, and if I didn't understand it, I would pray about it. If it appears to conflict with existing written scripture, I would pray about my understanding of both very carefully.
There have been a number of people who told me they prayed about the Book of Mormon or "the LDS church" and received the answer that it is not true. Such people have always been quick to add the many other reasons they do not believe in the church. I received a direct answer that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is true, and did not concern myself with or ask about what the naysayers say - that is not praying in faith.

Also, does that include the documents of the New Testament, which are themselves "interpretations made by a Church"?
To be quite honest I have prayed about the NT, and haven't gotten any direct answers about it. I have never really questioned its validity tho. I know it is true. But I wanted to understand the atonement. Or I wanted to know if the Peshitta has any books which are a more valid version than the Greek. To date I have received no answer on the latter. I do not quite agree with you that the NT is an interpretation of a church. I believe this to be most true of the letters of Paul which contain both inspired prophecy and his interpretation of things. The 4 gospels contain the words of Christ to the extent they were remembered as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they must be read in conjunction to get a fuller picture of what actually was said or transpired.

While we are on the subject it is mho tho that the Book of Mormon is telling us that the early Roman state church or the RCC altered the text of the Bible in some important ways, and indeed I have found this to be the case. Just a small example is Jerome's translation of Chittim into Italy.

How, exactly, would He do this...?
Usually by communicating it to one's soul, but occasionally by directly speaking to a searcher.

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 07:30 PM
Course it would be! Why?....The book of Mormon makes THIS blasphemous statement against the Holy Bible.

From the introduction of the Book of Mormon:
"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible... ...and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."...First that is actually not from the Book of Mormon itself, but was added later as a Forward. Nevertheless, how is that blasphemous? It teaches what one needs to be saved. It is what the people needed since they didn't have the NT record.

"Concerning this record the*Prophet Joseph Smith*said: "I told the brethren that the BOOK OF MORMON WAS THE MOST CORRECT OF ANY BOOK ON EARTH, AND THE KEYSTONE OF OUR RELIGION, AND A MAN WOULD GET NEARER TO GOD BY ABIDING BY ITS PRECEPTS, THAN ANY OTHER BOOK."

The BOM clearly elevates itself above the Bible.
First, that statement is not from the BoM, but was a statement Joseph Smith made about it which is not even in the book.
Second, it doesn't make the Book of Mormon more important than the Bible, even if it is technically more correct. Over the millennia the Bible has suffered some losses of text in its various versions, as well as having uninspired books added to it like the apocrypha used by the Catholic church which even adulterizes Daniel.


How can the LDS Church even use the Bible at all if they teach it is inferior to the Book of Mormon?
The Bible is what converted me to the LDS church, and while I don't believe it is "perfect" it is valid and inspired and is every bit as important, if not more important than the Book of Mormon. And indeed it prophesies that it will become one with the BoM before the eyes of the people (Ezek 37). Nevertheless, the BoM does clarify some of the prophecies of the Bible which may otherwise be misunderstood. I don't believe you will find the LDS church teaches that the Bible is inferior to the BoM. I certainly do not feel that way nor teach that - actually my first love continues to be the Bible - even with its imperfections. Nor was the BoM perfect despite the efforts of Joseph Smith. It had some errors although the vast majority were semantic in nature or caused by initial lack of punctuation.


God Bless!You too!

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 07:56 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]Your tacit claim to know and comprehend the content of my posted sources without having read them is noted, and rejected as patented nonsense. Here you merely beg the question in favor of your present bias toward the Mormon belief system. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: "A Mormon has to be very careful of what he reads." Your deliberate avoidance of relevant material is noted, as is the lack of intellectual integrity that stands behind it.
I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. I did open those pages and read them - they mostly concerned the pun on the play between Peter's name, and a stone and other such relative nonsense. That does not get to the heart of what Jesus was saying - He wasn't just playing word games.



Categorically refuted here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm), here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), here (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-rock-of-matthew-1618-st-peter-or-his.html), here (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/pope-peter-part-v-upon-this-rock.html), and here (http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/RockPeterOrConfession.doc).

Sorry, in my estimation, this is more of the same nonsense. Peter being a stone for Jesus, is not like Abraham being blessed as the father of many nations. You can believe that if you want, but I know better. Here is another example from the gospel of a stone being revelation or a part of the Word:

Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

and another:

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Your links are a bunch of fluffy nonsense.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 09:33 PM
I gave a reference which you did not care for, and instead accused me of lying or trying to trick you.

I think you have a deep religious bias which you refuse to give up. This insistence of yours that abortion statistics all seem to come from the Guttmacher Institute is simply not valid.
Here is another:
(CNSNews.com) – In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
For Hispanic women, there were 22,917 abortions in New York City in 2012, which is 31% of the total abortions.

Black and Hispanic abortions combined, 54,245 babies, is 73% of the total abortions in the Big Apple in 2012.
The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics.
The CDC also does abortion statistics which are independent of Planned Parenthood.
None of them support your insistence that Protestants are leading the charge for abortion. I will also remind you that abortion in Russia and China is also quite high, and there has nothing to do with Protestantism but rather "Communism."

Your are so desperate to prove me wrong you apparently could care less that we are discussing illegal abortions, not legal abortions, as your claim was about abortion in Brazil, where it is illegal except for medical conditions or rape. This is not becoming of a Christian. Embrace the truth.

Cruciform
July 26th, 2015, 09:51 PM
I received a direct answer that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is true...
By what means, exactly, and how do you know---not assume or believe---this with certainty?


...and did not concern myself with or ask about what the naysayers say

It's easy to believe things in the willful ignorance of alternative positions. Here's what it looks like:



http://files.www.cmhnetwork.org/home-page-slides/head_in_sand_reverse-process-s300x184.png



...that is not praying in faith.

What you're describing is not praying in faith, but assuming in credulity (see photo above). God endowed human beings with the power of reason for a purpose, and that purpose was not so that we should flee from critical thinking into some sort of blissful irrationality. Anti-intellectualism is simply not an option for Christ's faithful, for we are commanded to love the Lord with all of our mind, not merely our soul.


I do not quite agree with you that the NT is an interpretation of a church.
It is an interpretation of the Tanach (Old Testament) by the Apostolic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) (its leaders, the apostles and early bishops).


Usually by communicating it to one's soul...
What does that mean? How exactly does the Spirit "communicate something to one's soul"? Please describe this process, and how one knows---not assumes or believes---that it is the Spirit's communication at all.


...but occasionally by directly speaking to a searcher.
Again, explain how one knows---not assumes or believes---that this supposed voice is in fact the Spirit, and not merely one's own feelings, thoughts, and imaginings.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 09:59 PM
Hey Revtestament, speaking of abortion in Brazil, the founders of Planned Parenthood were racist just like the founders of the LDS because they both hated black people. In fact that is why PP builds it's clinics is inner city areas and why half of all blacks conceived in the womb are murdered in these areas.

Speaking of your defense of Planned Parenthoods racist propaganda to establish itself in Brazil so it can kill even more "undesirable races" might I ask you to clarify you stance regarding human beings - are we all the same in the eyes of God or did God create some people "better" than others?

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 11:05 PM
Your are so desperate to prove me wrong you apparently could care less that we are discussing illegal abortions, not legal abortions, as your claim was about abortion in Brazil, where it is illegal except for medical conditions or rape. This is not becoming of a Christian. Embrace the truth.
You are easy to prove wrong since you use no statistics to support your baseless opinion that "Protestant countries" "are the source" or "promote" abortion, homosexuality, etc. I have shown facts which tend to disprove your baseless assertions - namely that Protestants in America are not the source of the sins you rail about.
Now how does it matter if abortion in Catholic Brazil is legal or not to the issue that abortion actually takes place there? It just shows that Catholics there are willing to break the law to commit the sin of abortion you want to allege is promoted by "Protestant America." In fact I find it rather distasteful for you to try to hide behind "illegal abortion" as a reason not to rely on statistics when it just so happens that it is illegal in all the Catholic countries of Latin America which you allege "promote true Christianity" - how convenient for you.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 11:45 PM
You are easy to prove wrong since you use no statistics to support your baseless opinion that "Protestant countries" "are the source" or "promote" abortion, homosexuality, etc. I have shown facts which tend to disprove your baseless assertions - namely that Protestants in America are not the source of the sins you rail about.
Now how does it matter if abortion in Catholic Brazil is legal or not to the issue that abortion actually takes place there? It just shows that Catholics there are willing to break the law to commit the sin of abortion you want to allege is promoted by "Protestant America." In fact I find it rather distasteful for you to try to hide behind "illegal abortion" as a reason not to rely on statistics when it just so happens that it is illegal in all the Catholic countries of Latin America which you allege "promote true Christianity" - how convenient for you.

You have no valid references.

I have clearly pointed out that Planned Parenthood is the source of "illegal" abortions in the world and as such it is not reliable, yet you persist. Most Latin American countries do not have abortion on demand. FACT.

RevTestament
July 26th, 2015, 11:51 PM
Speaking of your defense of Planned Parenthoods racist propaganda to establish itself in Brazil so it can kill even more "undesirable races" might I ask you to clarify you stance regarding human beings - are we all the same in the eyes of God or did God create some people "better" than others?You have now crossed the line with me bud. I won't tolerate being accused of things I haven't done, nor being made into the butt of your straw man make-believe world. I have in no way defended Planned Parenthood nor racism. Quite the contrary. I have flatly stated their practice of selling fetal parts is despicable. I cannot help the fact that statistics do not support your "fantasy world" and show that abortions are many times higher among "Catholic" hispanics as opposed to whites, many of whom you allege as being Protestant. Just because the facts do not support your baseless theory doesn't make me a racist. If you can't muster any evidence to support your ridiculous accusations about "protestant countries" promoting these things, then I must conclude that your accusations are baseless, and are just figments of your own prejudices concerning Protestants. I won't use up my time on this kind of rubbish. Good day.

Sancocho
July 26th, 2015, 11:58 PM
You have now crossed the line with me bud. I won't tolerate being accused of things I haven't done, nor being made into the butt of your straw man make-believe world. I have in no way defended Planned Parenthood nor racism. Quite the contrary. I have flatly stated their practice of selling fetal parts is despicable. I cannot help the fact that statistics do not support your "fantasy world" and show that abortions are many times higher among "Catholic" hispanics as opposed to whites, many of whom you allege as being Protestant. Just because the facts do not support your baseless theory doesn't make me a racist. If you can't muster any evidence to support your ridiculous accusations about "protestant countries" promoting these things, then I must conclude that your accusations are baseless, and are just figments of your own prejudices concerning Protestants. I won't use up my time on this kind of rubbish. Good day.

Forgive me for asking but your propensity to use obviously tainted data from the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood coupled with the fact that early LDS leaders were documented racists made me wonder.

I recommend you look at the real facts from pro life webpages regarding illegal abortion in the world instead of believing a diabolic organization.

I also applaud you for standing up for children's rights. I also know as as an American it is difficult to accept we have more abortions than Latin American countries and promote abortion more than any other country but the facts are the facts, sorry. If it is any condolence I had a hard time believing the truth as well.

I do find it odd than anyone who knows of the racist past of the LDS could support them since it was part of church doctrine.

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 01:22 AM
[FONT="Georgia"]By what means, exactly, and how do you know---not assume or believe---this with certainty?Doesn't matter since you will not accept my personal "subjective" experiences. So if I tell you the Lord told me this church is true, you will not believe. For the most part people do not believe other people's "subjective" experiences concerning God unless they coincide with their own. Again for the most part they will only believe if they have the experience themselves.


It's easy to believe things in the willful ignorance of alternative positions. ***

Anti-intellectualism is simply not an option for Christ's faithful, for we are commanded to love the Lord with all of our mind, not merely our soul. I resolve that commandment differently. I do not go to the Lord with doubts. It is my job to seek out the truth to the point that I can pray about something succinctly. I do not pray about what John Doe said. I believe that is not showing faith. If He says to pray about whether the BoM is true, then that is what I am to do unencumbered by outside prejudices. If He tells me it is true, then the outside naysayers are wrong. However, contrary to what you would believe about me, I am quite familiar with what the naysayers say, and have studied virtually all their many arguments against the church - so that is not sticking my head in the sand.

James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

I believe this is where many go wrong when they pray about the BoM. They do encumber themselves with doubts they want the answer to. They must be totally committed to live by the answer they receive.


What you're describing is not praying in faith, but assuming in credulity (see photo above).I disagree, and just showed why.

God endowed human beings with the power of reason for a purpose, and that purpose was not so that we should flee from critical thinking into some sort of blissful irrationality. Anti-intellectualism is simply not an option for Christ's faithful, for we are commanded to love the Lord with all of our mind, not merely our soul.
I am not "anti-intellectual" at all. I understand there are many arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ. There are also many arguments against the RCC. But I don't pray about arguments of men. I pray about my understanding of His word. I pray about the truth of scripture interpretation. Ultimately, that is what I need to know.

Proverbs 25:2

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Praying about the beliefs or arguments of men is not demonstrating faith in Him and His word. I sincerely doubt anyone has ever gotten any answers from the Lord that way.


It is an interpretation of the Tanach (Old Testament) by the Apostolic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) (its leaders, the apostles and early bishops).
On the contrary. The NT is the revelation of Christ to us concerning the Tanakh. It is NOT our interpretation of Christ to Him. Catholics seem to have that backwards, but they are used to that with the formulation of creeds in which they tell the people what to believe.


What does that mean? How exactly does the Spirit "communicate something to one's soul"? Please describe this process, and how one knows---not assumes or believes---that it is the Spirit's communication at all.

Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.



Again, explain how one knows---not assumes or believes---that this supposed voice is in fact the Spirit, and not merely one's own feelings, thoughts, and imaginings.
I have heard the voice of the Lord even as a mere child while reading the scriptures in my Baptist church with no thought of prayer or seeking any kind of answer. He just spoke to me. So I know what it is like. Others in my church have related similar stories. Of course to basically everyone else that is crazy talk, and I have never told anyone what was said to me. Protestants generally do not believe that kind of presentation. Psychiatrists would probably first assume that such a presentation by a child is delusional. So I ultimately forgot about it until many years later when the Lord again spoke to me in prayer. For me I know it is real because of the many answers I have received since that time as well as other powerful experiences. To everyone else, it is basically crazy talk. They will not believe until they see fruits. There are simply too many false prophets in the world.
But if the Lord spoke to you in your earnest prayer, then you would know what I am talking about. I even read one person who said while investigating this church, he heard a voice tell him "it is true, it is true" while sitting in a service, so he joined even though he later left based on doubts he began to have. One story relates a man who was working in his front yard while wondering and praying how to help his neighbor, when he heard a voice tell him "stop the boys on the bikes." Startled, he looked up but saw no one. So he went out to his sidewalk and so no one. So he went out further, and there coming down the street were two young men on bicycles. Flabbergasted, he stared as they rode by. Then he yelled out to them. Both he and his neighbor converted to the church from the strength of this experience.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/ask-the-missionaries-they-can-help-you?lang=eng

So it is not something unheard of in my church. Many members have had a voice warning them, etc.

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 01:38 AM
...which was Paul, the founder of Christianity in the city of Antioch where Christians were called Christians for the very first time. (Acts 11:26) It is only obvious that, from this text, Paul was the first Pope. I know that Peter is claimed to have been the one but, obviously he couldn't. He was a Jew loyal to his Faith which was Judaism and a Jew could not have been the First Pope. However, there was a Pope from Jewish origin though but, he had converted to the Catholic Church and had joined the Clergy life. His name was Pope Gregory VII the Great. (From the book, "History of Christianity.")

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 02:30 AM
Forgive me for asking but your propensity to use obviously tainted data from the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood coupled with the fact that early LDS leaders were documented racists made me wonder.
First the last data I gave was from individual state departments - not the Guttmacher Institute. I don't think it matters where I get the data from, you are going to continue down this same baseless, accusational path.

I recommend you look at the real facts from pro life webpages regarding illegal abortion in the world instead of believing a diabolic organization.Again, I have not used any data from the Guttmacher Institute nor Planned Parenthood.
But here is some data from the National Right to Life Committee:
http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf
It shows the CDC data is plainly different from the Guttmacher Institute, and is not "tainted" by them as you seem to infer.


I also applaud you for standing up for children's rights. I also know as as an American it is difficult to accept we have more abortions than Latin American countries and promote abortion more than any other country but the facts are the facts, sorry.Nope. On a per capita basis that is not true. Of course since the US has many more people than any of these other countries, the absolute number is greater for the US. But as a rate based upon a percentage of abortions per citizen, it is highly doubtful you are correct. All the statistics for the US agree the rates of abortion in the US have been in a steady decline for decades now.

If it is any condolence I had a hard time believing the truth as well.
What truth? you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your assertions. I simply don't like people making unfounded statements.

I do find it odd than anyone who knows of the racist past of the LDS could support them since it was part of church doctrine.
And this is simply one more. My church has never denied membership to any race nor practiced segregation. Nevertheless, the membership did basically all come from Protestant churches, and therefore came into the church with their own prejudices.
The church was anti-slavery, and Joseph Smith had received a revelation that there would be a civil war probably over the slave issue. When the church moved into pro-slavery territory, its small black membership seemed to stir up extra trouble and persecutions for the church on top of the many she already received. Brigham Young didn't really give a reason for disallowing black men to hold the priesthood, but he did say that they would be allowed to hold it in the future, and he denounced those who persecuted blacks. It seems to me a common Protestant theory about Cain, was implicit in all this. To be blunt this is one of the few original doubts I had about the church. Whatever the case may be, the Lord eventually made it clear that blacks could not only be members, but black men could hold the priesthood. I will not fault the church as a whole for prejudices the leadership may have once held when it is also possible the Lord had His reasons.
The Lord is not prejudiced, but sometimes He does make things wait until the proper time - the Gentiles had to wait. Is that because the Lord was prejudiced against them? Nevertheless, the Bible makes it clear that people from Egypt and Ethiopia will come to Him in the latter days.

The Book of Mormon says:

2 Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Nonetheless women have never held the priesthood. Do Catholics believe that makes God sexist?

Right Divider
July 27th, 2015, 06:26 AM
I became a Protestant when I believed the claims against the Catholic Church.

However, after becoming a Protestant after researching all the "evidence" I found out it was baseless.

If you have something to "prove" do it with a reference not just because you "say so".

You're funny. You make the claim without evidence and then require evidence to the contrary.

Israel had scripture long before your "church" invented itself

Cruciform
July 27th, 2015, 04:27 PM
Doesn't matter since you will not accept my personal "subjective" experiences.
I won't accept my own personal subjective experiences either, since there's no way to distinguish my psychological, emotional, and/or imaginative thoughts from any supposed externally-communicated divine "voice"---and neither can you. Thus, the very best you can say is that you "assume" or "believe" that you've had an experience of the divine, but you simply cannot claim that you know you've received a communication from God. You've merely chosen to interpret your experience as "God's word," but whether or not it actually is such a thing is entirely unknowable.


So if I tell you the Lord told me this church is true, you will not believe.
Of course not. Nor would I believe the New Ager who claims that "the Lord told him" that Jesus is an alien from Neptune, and that's why He could walk on water. Assumptions and beliefs are one thing; knowledge and truth are quite another.


I believe I've already answered the rest of your statements in prior posts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
July 27th, 2015, 04:57 PM
I won't accept my own personal subjective experiences either, since there's no way to distinguish my psychological, emotional, and/or imaginative thoughts from any supposed externally-communicated divine "voice"---and neither can you. Thus, the very best you can say is that you "assume" or "believe" that you've had an experience of the divine, but you simply cannot claim that you know you've received a communication from God. You've merely chosen to interpret your experience as "God's word," but whether or not it actually is such a thing is entirely unknowable.


Of course not. Nor would I believe the New Ager who claims that "the Lord told him" that Jesus is an alien from Neptune, and that's why He could walk on water. Assumptions and beliefs are one thing; knowledge and truth are quite another.


I believe I've already answered the rest of your statements in prior posts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Faith is not something that is in your bag and can be taken out and measured. Faith is in the heart. We don't serve those because it is some measure of faith or the result of some command. We serve those in need because in our heart we know it is the right thing to do. Look at Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats. People didn't serve because they were told to, they served because there was need.

If you attempt to reduce faith to a formula or a check list them you have no faith at all.

Cruciform
July 27th, 2015, 05:42 PM
Faith is not something that is in your bag and can be taken out and measured. Faith is in the heart. We don't serve those because it is some measure of faith or the result of some command. We serve those in need because in our heart we know it is the right thing to do. Look at Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats. People didn't serve because they were told to, they served because there was need. If you attempt to reduce faith to a formula or a check list them you have no faith at all.
Faith is far more than a mere emotion, sentiment, or good intention. Genuine faith cannot be separated from faithfulness. It is something we DO, a commitment to serve the Lord. Faith is loyalty, fidelity, self-sacrifice.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
July 27th, 2015, 05:57 PM
Faith is far more than a mere emotion, sentiment, or good intention. Genuine faith cannot be separated from faithfulness. It is something we DO, a commitment to serve the Lord. Faith is loyalty, fidelity, self-sacrifice.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Why you do something is more important than what you do. Faith cannot be imperially measured as your post implied. You say you don't trust your own emotions. You should. If you see somebody in need and your motivation for helping them is that your church obligates you to do so, then your work, regardless of how magnificent it is, is naught but filthy rags.

While I agree that spiritual discipline is needed, that discipline should never serve as the sole or even primary motivation for our actions. Our acts must be motivated out of love for both God and our neighbor.

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 06:41 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]I won't accept my own personal subjective experiences either, since there's no way to distinguish my psychological, emotional, and/or imaginative thoughts from any supposed externally-communicated divine "voice"---and neither can you. Thus, the very best you can say is that you "assume" or "believe" that you've had an experience of the divine, but you simply cannot claim that you know you've received a communication from God. You've merely chosen to interpret your experience as "God's word," but whether or not it actually is such a thing is entirely unknowable.To Abraham it wasn't unknowable - he was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac which seems like a demonic request to us. To Moses the voice of the Lord wasn't unknowable, but he followed the command.
And to the young Methodist who heard "stop the boys on the bikes" it wasn't unknowable. How could that just be his imagination? Did his imagination know there were two young missionaries on bikes headed down the street by his house? Either the devil was able to hear his silent prayer or someone heard his prayer and was intervening due to his humble request. So I can understand his open response to the missionaries.

The things which have happened to me are inexplicable other than by supernatural intervention. I experienced them. I cannot sufficiently communicate them, and do not try. I do try to reveal what I have been taught as a result of these experiences, however, but for now must be content with the knowledge that one day people will appreciate what God has done as His strange work proceeds.


Of course not. Nor would I believe the New Ager who claims that "the Lord told him" that Jesus is an alien from Neptune, and that's why He could walk on water. Assumptions and beliefs are one thing; knowledge and truth are quite another.
And like I said, I don't really expect you to believe me. I wouldn't believe myself if I hadn't experienced it. Yet, I did, and did, and did over the course of years. But rather than try to get people to believe what I personally experienced, I merely try to relay what I have been taught through my own seeking.

But maybe there are people who are willing to seek after the truth who are willing to pray about possible new scripture. I did it. Many others have read the Book of Mormon as well to gain a testimony of it. My own children have to develop their own testimonies of the BoM and of the truthfulness of the restored gospel. While I have relayed a few stories to them, I simply cannot give them my personal experiences.

I hesitate to say this, but it seems you have trouble in the "faith" department.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[ie restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

These are those last days when all things are being restored in order that He may return, and the mystery of God shall be made complete.

There is no way to gain more truth if one is not willing to search. One doesn't have to give up what they have known to search...and live without regrets.

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 06:43 PM
Why you do something is more important than what you do. Faith cannot be imperially measured as your post implied. You say you don't trust your own emotions. You should. If you see somebody in need and your motivation for helping them is that your church obligates you to do so, then your work, regardless of how magnificent it is, is naught but filthy rags.

While I agree that spiritual discipline is needed, that discipline should never serve as the sole or even primary motivation for our actions. Our acts must be motivated out of love for both God and our neighbor.:thumb:
And there is the heart of true Christianity.

Cruciform
July 27th, 2015, 08:45 PM
Why you do something is more important than what you do. Faith cannot be imperially measured as your post implied. You say you don't trust your own emotions. You should. If you see somebody in need and your motivation for helping them is that your church obligates you to do so, then your work, regardless of how magnificent it is, is naught but filthy rags.
You're talking about something other than what I was discussing with RevTestament, so it doesn't really apply. I was replying to RT's claim that the Lord "spoke to his soul" and told him that the LDS "church" is the true Church. You're off on something else entirely.

I was asking an epistemological question, not an ontological one.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 27th, 2015, 08:55 PM
To Abraham it wasn't unknowable...
You're making the common mistake of assuming that God's normative means of communicating his truth with lay believers is the same as his unique means of delivering his word to patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Of course, that's simply not the case. So comparing yourself with Abraham on this particular issue just doesn't work.


There is no way to gain more truth if one is not willing to search.
Ah. You mean the way that you so carefully and thoroughly studied the sources I provided in my previous post? Sources that you admitted you wouldn't "waste your time" taking seriously because you're simply unwilling---unable---to honestly evaluate your own present assumptions and beliefs? You might want to read your own statement just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 10:05 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]You're making the common mistake of assuming that God's normative means of communicating his truth with lay believers is the same as his unique means of delivering his word to patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Of course, that's simply not the case. So comparing yourself with Abraham on this particular issue just doesn't work.I am simply relaying some personal experiences, and some stories of other people in my church. It's obvious that to believe them would disturb your apple cart - I can actually understand that. But there is always the do-it-yourself approach. Ultimately, that is the only way to achieve a lasting testimony. I am certainly not suggesting to expect an audible voice from God for anyone who decides to investigate the LDS church. I don't believe the way God communicated with His prophets was the same as being told a simple phrase - after all, the prophets delivered His word, word for word. I am stating however, that God still does speak to followers.



Ah. You mean the way that you so carefully and thoroughly studied the sources I provided in my previous post? Sources that you admitted you wouldn't "waste your time" taking seriously because your simply unwiling---unable---to honestly evaluate your own present assumptions and beliefs? You might want to read your own statement just above.I did look at the links, and then stated I wouldn't waste my time "copying them" as you suggested. If I read something I liked I would have downloaded a copy. I have reams of religious material, and simply do not copy everything I run across... If it makes you feel better, I did copy one of the links you gave in response to the Boettner list in another thread :)
Did you open and read the link I provided?

Dona Bate
July 28th, 2015, 01:29 AM
First that is actually not from the Book of Mormon itself, but was added later as a Forward.As stated in post #279...

'From the INTRODUCTION of the Book of Mormon:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible... ...and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."...,'

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction



Nevertheless, how is that blasphemous?From the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

"...that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world,*that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days..."


From the Bible:

Hebrews 1:1-2, "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,*last of all in these days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the world;..."


How can Joseph Smith*be a prophet who came after Jesus Christ, when Scripture so clearly tells us in Hebrews 1:1-2 that Jesus Christ was the last of the prophets?


So either the Holy Bible is wrong and Joseph Smith really is a prophet who came after Jesus Christ?

Or

The book of Mormon is wrong and your founder Joseph Smith is neither HIS revelator nor is he a prophet?


Which is it?

Please don't blaspheme God's written Word by claiming that the Bible is in error!



It teaches what one needs to be saved. It is what the people needed since they didn't have the NT record.Hebrews 1:1-2, definitively inform us that there will be no more divine revelation revealed after the teaching by the Word of GOD, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle died.*



First, that statement is not from the BoM, but was a statement Joseph Smith made about it which is not even in the book.Tell that to the LDS who say in their INTRODUCTION to the bom....

'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” '

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction



I don't believe you will find the LDS church teaches that the Bible is inferior to the BoM.You don't believe your own churches statement here?...

'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, THAN BY ANY OTHER BOOK.” '

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction

God Bless!

RevTestament
July 28th, 2015, 09:49 AM
As stated in post #279...

'From the INTRODUCTION of the Book of Mormon:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible... ...and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."...,'

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introductionLike I said it is not actually from the Book of Mormon itself but was added as a Forward later.



From the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

"...that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world,*that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days..."


From the Bible:

Hebrews 1:1-2, "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,*last of all in these days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the world;..."

How can Joseph Smith*be a prophet who came after Jesus Christ, when Scripture so clearly tells us in Hebrews 1:1-2 that Jesus Christ was the last of the prophets?


So either the Holy Bible is wrong and Joseph Smith really is a prophet who came after Jesus Christ?

Or

The book of Mormon is wrong and your founder Joseph Smith is neither HIS revelator nor is he a prophet?

Which is it?

Please don't blaspheme God's written Word by claiming that the Bible is in error!
No, your interpretation is in error.
Interesting...a Catholic who is propounding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura....one little problem...that doctrine is wrong.
1. If it is right how come, Jesus wasn't the last prophet, but John prophesied in the book of Revelation, and Paul prophesied in his epistles?
2. How come the two witnesses of Rev 11 have yet to prophesy?
3. How come Peter refers to Joel saying in the last days God will pour out His spirit and people will prophesy, have visions, and dreams to emphasize this was happening after Jesus left? Acts 2:17
4. Hebrews 1 is not saying Jesus was the last prophet. It is simply telling us that God did speak through His Son "in these last days." What is meant by "these last days" is not really obvious. It could be referring to the last days of the Jews in Jerusalem, and the last days for the city before being destroyed. Or it could be referring to the last half of the days of the 7 seals of the gospel. Jesus Himself did not use "the last days" the same as His references to "the end."


Hebrews 1:1-2, definitively inform us that there will be no more divine revelation revealed after the teaching by the Word of GOD, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle died.*
It says nothing of the kind and Rev 11 directly refutes such an interpretation.


Tell that to the LDS who say in their INTRODUCTION to the bom....

'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” '

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction
As I indicated it is a statement of Joseph Smith about the book and is not in the Book itself - it is added to some versions later as a part of a Forward or Introduction.

You don't believe your own churches statement here?...

That is not really my "church's statement." It was Joseph Smith's statement. It seems to be his opinion. I'm sure he had lots of opinions. It doesn't change my love of the Bible, and it's many precepts. Although having studied the Bible intently for years, I have to agree that The BoM is more accurate - especially as compared the the Catholic Bible. Scribal errors, poor translation, and outright additions and omissions have affected the Bible. Even your own Catholic Encyclopedia admits to ancient addition in what's known as the Johanine Coma from a manuscript margin note, etc.

Cruciform
July 28th, 2015, 03:32 PM
I am simply relaying some personal experiences, and some stories of other people in my church. It's obvious that to believe them would disturb your apple cart...
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.

CabinetMaker
July 28th, 2015, 03:45 PM
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.
The odd thing is, he does not need to provide you a reason, it is a matter of faith. All you can do, all any of us can do, is share the Truth of the Gospel. It is not up to us convince anybody that we are right. We share the Truth, our reason for hope, and then its between them and God. In the end, the reason we believe is entirely experiential. If ones faith is empirical than they have no faith at all.

Cruciform
July 28th, 2015, 04:03 PM
The odd thing is, he does not need to provide you a reason, it is a matter of faith. All you can do, all any of us can do, is share the Truth of the Gospel. It is not up to us convince anybody that we are right.
Sharing the Gospel is, once again, a different issue from what RT and I have been discussing, which is RT's claim that "the Lord told him" that the LDS "church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. My point has been that one needs more than bare subjective claims if one expects others to take him at all seriously. My statement in Post #306 therefore stands.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
July 28th, 2015, 04:22 PM
Sharing the Gospel is, once again, a different issue from what RT and I have been discussing, which is RT's claim that "the Lord told him" that the LDS "church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. My point has been that one needs more than bare subjective claims if one expects others to take him at all seriously. My statement in Post #306 therefore stands.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
My point is that all one has for faith are subjective claim. Faith in God is a subjective experience that differs from each one of us. When people begin to accept extra biblical writings as equally authoritative to scripture then real problems begin to set in.

Cruciform
July 28th, 2015, 04:28 PM
My point is that all one has for faith are subjective claim. Faith in God is a subjective experience that differs from each one of us.
Yet again, the topic of discussion was not "faith," but knowledge. The subject was epistemology. If you want to discuss the nature of faith, you'll have to start another thread.


When people begin to accept extra biblical writings as equally authoritative to scripture then real problems begin to set in.
...declares the guy who himself holds to any number of extra-biblical notions and beliefs.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
July 28th, 2015, 04:54 PM
Yet again, the topic of discussion was not "faith," but knowledge. The subject was epistemology. If you want to discuss the nature of faith, you'll have to start another thread.


...declares the guy who himself holds to any number of extra-biblical notions and beliefs.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Which is entirely in true. I live quite simply on every word that God had spoken to us. That's it. The standard by which all else is tested: God's Word.

Cruciform
July 28th, 2015, 05:49 PM
Which is entirely in true. I live quite simply on every word that God had spoken to us.
"Scripture alone" (sola scriptura) is certainly not "every word that God has spoken to us," as even the Scriptures themselves (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) plainly testify. Sola scriptura is itself an extra-biblical notion invented by mere men. Thus, you've merely proven my point.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 28th, 2015, 10:02 PM
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.

A heart of stone never saved anyone Cruciform.

Ya know I read your links, but you never did say you bothered to open mine and read it. There are numerous stories in my church in which people heard the voice of the Lord or angels - many times to warn them not to step into the road or to save them from other such hazards. People like yourself are never interested in reading them... they demand proof - which is nonsensical when it comes to God:

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Again, I don't expect you to believe what I have told you, but numerous people telling these types of stories should be enough to merit investigation for oneself:

This is how faith works:

Alma 32:36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

CabinetMaker
July 28th, 2015, 10:39 PM
"Scripture alone" (sola scriptura) is certainly not "every word that God has spoken to us," as even the Scriptures themselves (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) plainly testify. Sola scriptura is itself an extra-biblical notion invented by mere men. Thus, you've merely proven my point.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

But you have never been able to counter it unless you misrepresent it. Scripture is all that we have that know, through faith, that
God gave us. Even you admit that. You just choose to willingly accept extra biblical texts as another revelation from God. Sound familiar to anything on this thread? You do exactly that which you say Rev has no right to do.

Cruciform
July 29th, 2015, 03:03 PM
You just choose to willingly accept extra biblical texts as another revelation from God.
Post #312.


You do exactly that which you say Rev has no right to do.
Not at all. The only Scriptures accepted by Catholics are those that comprise the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Mormons, by contrast, accept additional supposed Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Catholics affirm only the Bible as "Scripture."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
July 29th, 2015, 03:05 PM
Post #312.


Not at all. The only Scriptures accepted by Catholics are those that comprise the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Mormons, by contrast, accept additional supposed Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Catholics affirm only the Bible as "Scripture."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
And yet you see the Catechism as functionally equivalent to scripture. You have stated so in the past.

Cruciform
July 29th, 2015, 03:17 PM
A heart of stone never saved anyone...
Non Sequitur Fallacy.


Ya know I read your links, but you never did say you bothered to open mine and read it.
Yes, I read your sources. I've been reading Mormon literature---BOM, Robert Millet, Terryl Givens, etc.---for years.


The rest of your comments have already been answered in previous posts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 29th, 2015, 03:21 PM
And yet you see the Catechism as functionally equivalent to scripture. You have stated so in the past.
And yet the Catechism is not "Scripture," as I've also stated. The point being that---contrary to your assumptions---something does not have to be "Scripture" to be the infallibly true and authoritative word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). See this (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

everready
July 29th, 2015, 04:08 PM
And yet the Catechism is not "Scripture," as I've also stated. The point being that---contrary to your assumptions---something does not have to be "Scripture" to be the infallibly true and authoritative word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). See this (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Are you saying that someone has the right to usurp the authoritative word of God?


everready

Cruciform
July 29th, 2015, 04:46 PM
Are you saying that someone has the right to usurp the authoritative word of God?
No.

CabinetMaker
July 29th, 2015, 06:17 PM
And yet the Catechism is not "Scripture," as I've also stated. The point being that---contrary to your assumptions---something does not have to be "Scripture" to be the infallibly true and authoritative word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). See this (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
What is scripture if it is not the authoritave word of God? What else but scripture could be the authoritative word of a God? If you say the Catichism is such them you have no basis for claiming the Book of Morman is not.

Cruciform
July 29th, 2015, 11:08 PM
What is scripture if it is not the authoritave word of God?
No one claimed that Scripture was NOT the authoritative word of God. Catholics merely don't buy into the 16th-century Protestant notion that ONLY Scripture is the authoritative word of God.


What else but scripture could be the authoritative word of a God?
As even Scripture affirms, Apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is also the authoritative word of God.


If you say the Catechism is such them you have no basis for claiming the Book of Morman is not.
Of course I do, since the Catholic Church is that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) (thus rendering the content of the Catechism both infallible and authoritative), while the LDS "church" was founded by mere men in 1830, and thus can make no claim to being that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which He declared that the powers of death would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). The Book of Mormon, therefore, can be nothing more than a wholly human composition with no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 29th, 2015, 11:39 PM
What is scripture if it is not the authoritave word of God? What else but scripture could be the authoritative word of a God? If you say the Catichism is such them you have no basis for claiming the Book of Morman is not.

Well, thanks I guess, but sure he does. Not everything that claims to be scripture is. There are hundreds of gnostic books I do not accept as scripture. I don't accept the Urantia Book as scripture. Just because there can be additional scripture not currently in the Bible, like the Book of Jasher, doesn't mean Maccabees for example, is scripture.
How does one know? That is a the crux of the matter. I don't accept every word of one of our church authorities as scripture. If they were to represent that the Lord told them to tell us something, then I would probably accept that as scripture. If I saw a potential conflict with other accepted scripture, I would study the issue and pray about it.
TBH I'm not sure how Catholics are supposed to know what their pontiff says is scripture or not. Does he say something like "this is the infallible word?" In my studies it seems this is usually determined after the fact...

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 05:33 AM
No one claimed that Scripture was NOT the authoritative word of God. Catholics merely don't buy into the 16th-century Protestant notion that ONLY Scripture is the authoritative word of God.




Have you ever thought about why in the 16th century men felt they needed to get back to scripture? They saw how they were drifting from it and going off course.

The things you do on a daily bases are not found in scripture and are even aganist scripture. Since you personally can't understand scripture, you have to believe what your told as to why the two do not agree.

RevTestament
July 30th, 2015, 01:02 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]Non Sequitur Fallacy.


Yes, I read your sources. I've been reading Mormon literature---BOM, Robert Millet, Terryl Givens, etc.---for years.

In your opinion is there anything in the BOM which is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible?

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 01:22 PM
In your opinion is there anything in the BOM which is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible?

Celestial marriage

Cruciform
July 30th, 2015, 02:58 PM
The things you do on a daily bases are not found in scripture and are even aganist scripture.
...according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. But go ahead and offer an example of a Catholic teaching that you see as "against Scripture."


Since you personally can't understand scripture...
I interpret and understand Scripture all the time. I simply do so by comparing my understanding with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). You, by contrast, compare your understanding of Scripture with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
July 30th, 2015, 03:00 PM
Well, thanks I guess, but sure he does. Not everything that claims to be scripture is. There are hundreds of gnostic books I do not accept as scripture. I don't accept the Urantia Book as scripture. Just because there can be additional scripture not currently in the Bible, like the Book of Jasher, doesn't mean Maccabees for example, is scripture.
How does one know? That is a the crux of the matter. I don't accept every word of one of our church authorities as scripture. If they were to represent that the Lord told them to tell us something, then I would probably accept that as scripture. If I saw a potential conflict with other accepted scripture, I would study the issue and pray about it.
TBH I'm not sure how Catholics are supposed to know what their pontiff says is scripture or not. Does he say something like "this is the infallible word?" In my studies it seems this is usually determined after the fact...
To an outside observer, the Profit and the Pope are functionally identical.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 03:04 PM
The Catholic Church coattails on Peter's eminence, and yet has the audacity to expound on his weaknesses.

That is to say, the RCC only respects that which is convenient to it at a given time, just as it has only done what has been convenient to itself since it's foundation.

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 03:18 PM
But go ahead and offer an example of a Catholic teaching that you see as "against Scripture."


Where to begin? Infant baptism.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 03:38 PM
Where to begin? Infant baptism.

Luther, who is the author of Sola Scriptura, believed in the authenticity of infant baptism.

It's not a very good argument.

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 04:00 PM
Luther, who is the author of Sola Scriptura, believed in the authenticity of infant baptism.

It's not a very good argument.

Not trying to be rude but, I could care less what Luther believed.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 04:10 PM
Not trying to be rude but, I could care less what Luther believed.

The Bible is not the only source of information, some things can be deduced without the words of scriptures.
To think otherwise is just illogical, and that is why I brought up Luther as he proposed scripture as the only thing needed to be learned in all the necessary things of God- yet still held to extra-biblical notions.

Cruciform
July 30th, 2015, 04:17 PM
In your opinion is there anything in the BOM which is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible?
Quite a bit, yes (http://www.davidcox.com.mx/tracts/m02_cox-mormon_contradictions_v1.pdf).*




_______
*This is a pamphlet, and so should be printed and folded to be read correctly.

Cruciform
July 30th, 2015, 04:34 PM
Where to begin? Infant baptism.
This is merely one more opinion that you've derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. The simple fact is that the majority of your fellow Protestants today (and throughout history) wholeheartedly affirm the doctrine of infant baptism, so your minority claim that it is somehow "against Scripture" falls rather flat.

The Christian Church has been baptizing the infant children of believers from the very beginning of Christian history (see this (http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html), this (http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/baptbabe.pdf), and this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism)).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 04:38 PM
This is merely one more opinion that you've derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. The simple fact is that the majority of your fellow Protestants today wholeheartedly affirm the doctrine of infant baptism, so your minority claim that it is somehow "against Scripture" falls rather flat.

The Christian Church has been baptizing the infant children of believers from the very beginning of Christian history (see this (http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html), this (http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/baptbabe.pdf), and this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism)).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I'm not reading your links because they're garbage. I don't care what anyone is doing or has done. I care about it being in the bible. If someone says something that they believe to be truth that is not in scripture, who am I to believe?

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 04:45 PM
The Bible is not the only source of information, some things can be deduced without the words of scriptures.
To think otherwise is just illogical, and that is why I brought up Luther as he proposed scripture as the only thing needed to be learned in all the necessary things of God- yet still held to extra-biblical notions.

The bible is the only thing that matters. I think that is a lot of the problems we have today. People look at the bible through the filters of other men instead of letting the bible explain itself.

I don't consider Luther to be the author of scripture alone, but the first one that was able to proclaim it and escape the "church" hanging.

Cruciform
July 30th, 2015, 04:53 PM
I don't care what anyone is doing.
Well, you certainly care about what the teachers in your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are doing, and apparently think that Christ's Church somehow began with your sect. Sorry, but no. It is a simple thing to read the writings of the earliest Christians to see what they actually believed and did---to see what doctrines they received from the apostles themselves---and one of those things is the baptism of the infant children of believers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism).


I care about it being in the bible.
Now cite the biblical text which states that "Only things explicitly stated in the Bible may be believed and done by Christians." Chapter-and-verse, please.


If someone says something that they believe to be truth that is not in scripture, who am I to believe?
This comment merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, which is itself nowhere taught in Scripture, and which therefore simply refutes itself (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html). Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 06:19 PM
Well, you certainly care about what the teachers in your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are doing, and apparently think that Christ's Church somehow began with your sect. Sorry, but no. It is a simple thing to read the writings of the earliest Christians to see what they actually believed and did---to see what doctrines they received from the apostles themselves---and one of those things is the baptism of the infant children of believers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism).


Now cite the biblical text which states that "Only things explicitly stated in the Bible may be believed and done by Christians." Chapter-and-verse, please.


This comment merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, which is itself nowhere taught in Scripture, and which therefore simply refutes itself (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html). Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

See you can't prove infant baptism from the bible so you use all kinds of tactics to misdirect.

What the rcc does can not be supported by scripture.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 06:30 PM
Baptism is imputed, but is not salvific. It is simply augmenting the soul, and requires no will or an authoritative decision from a catholic priest. They recognize that.

turbosixx
July 30th, 2015, 08:09 PM
Baptism is imputed, but is not salvific. It is simply augmenting the soul, and requires no will or an authoritative decision from a catholic priest. They recognize that.

The bible says baptism saves.

1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 08:16 PM
The bible says baptism saves.

1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The apostles supposed in their time that anyone who would undergo a baptism would live up to the belief of Christ.. people back then didn't just do such things in a spur of the moment, or under a hunch. To get a baptism in those times was to ultimately be marked for death if you were discovered with a belief contrary to Rome's paganism.

RevTestament
July 30th, 2015, 09:16 PM
Celestial marriage

That's not in the BOM - sorry.
That's part of the new & everlasting covenant from Isaiah & D&C.

Cruciform
July 30th, 2015, 10:26 PM
See you can't prove infant baptism from the bible so you use all kinds of tactics to misdirect.
Already decisively answered (Post #338). Thanks for nicely proving my points.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 10:34 PM
Jim Jones, a false prophet and murderer of over 900 people was baptized.

That pretty much disproves any salvific notion of baptism.

RevTestament
July 30th, 2015, 10:38 PM
Quite a bit, yes (http://www.davidcox.com.mx/tracts/m02_cox-mormon_contradictions_v1.pdf).*
[/SIZE]
A lot of those things deal with figures of speech - not doctrines and such. For example, to use this:
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool."
To allege that Jesus couldn't have gone to any other Israelite tribes after His ascension is really ridiculous. Obviously, Jesus' enemies are not going to be his literal footstool. It's a figure of speech.

Another is the OT prophets talking about being sinful since birth. That is a figure of speech.
"Do children sin?
Yes according to Psa 51:5;
Rom 3:23) but the BOM says no (Moroni 8:8)."
Obviously to sin one must break a commandment. A newborn baby not only doesn't know commandments, but is incapable of breaking them since all they can do is breath, cry, eat, etc.

Probably the only good argument there is that the BOM does not describe how the Nephites ended up with a priesthood. The presentation seems to assume that Nephi had authority to build a temple and ordain priests.
If the Lord gave Aaron the authority over the Aaronic priesthood, why can't he give authority to others? Where do Catholic priests allege their authority comes from? Obviously they aren't "Levites."

To insist things like Melchisedek had no Father based on Heb 7:3, is clearly a matter of interpretation. I understand Heb 7:3 to mean that in his priesthood Melchizedek became like unto the Son of God, being without father, mother, or beginning of days. It is not saying that Melchizedek was miraculously born of a virgin like Jesus, or for that matter appeared upon the earth somehow without parents.

Here is another quibble: "Where was Jesus born?
Bethlehem Mat 2:1, 8,
but Alma 7:10 says Jerusalem."

Actually Alma says "the land of Jerusalem" - a very strange phrase which would be unknown to Joseph Smith. But exiles might use that phrase to refer to their homeland rather than "Judah" since they were not of Judah.

There are several complaints about modern words which show up in the BOM. One must remember that the BOM is a modern translation meant for modern readers. Perhaps these critics forget that basically no English words existed at the time the BOM was written so it is strange for them to complain that words like etcetera are used. Yes, the BOM has a few non-English words that were popular, and are still well known. I'm sure the Lord knows every language of the hundreds on the earth.

When Jesus died, the sky was darkened for 3
hours or 3 days?
Luke 23:44 says 3 hours, but
Helaman 14:17-27 says 3 days.

What do you know, a different land, and a different miraculous sign. How could that possibly be? Perhaps the thick mist spoken of?

I can go on, but maybe you get the point? None of these things are proofs that the BOM conflicts with the Bible. They are nitpicks by people who do not want to believe it.

Cruciform
July 30th, 2015, 11:02 PM
Jim Jones, a false prophet and murderer of over 900 people was baptized. That pretty much disproves any salvific notion of baptism.
Not at all, since one must possess a proper inner disposition (faith) in baptism in order to be regenerated. Also, one who is saved may certainly at some point choose to violate his baptismal grace through serious sin, as many have done.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 11:32 PM
Not at all, since one must possess a proper inner disposition (faith) in baptism in order to be regenerated. Also, one who is saved may certainly at some point choose to violate his baptismal grace through serious sin, as many have done.

Have you listened to the tape of Jim Jones during the poisoning of his laity?

It is absolutely desensitizing and gut wrenching, the most horrible thing I've ever listened to. It's when you start hearing the babies cry, you see..
That man is in Hell, and that is that.

And proves salvific baptism false.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 04:25 AM
Baptism is imputed, but is not salvific. It is simply augmenting the soul, and requires no will or an authoritative decision from a catholic priest. They recognize that.

There is nothing salvific in baptism. If you want to search for something salvific, you must look for it in the Law as Jesus himself declared that the only way to escape hell-fire is by listening to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:21)

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 05:35 AM
That's not in the BOM - sorry.
That's part of the new & everlasting covenant from Isaiah & D&C.

My mistake, I though the Mormons practiced it.

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 05:42 AM
Already decisively answered (Post #338). Thanks for nicely proving my points.


Decisively answered for someone who, by their own admission, can't understand the bible so they believe what they are told. For someone who understands the bible, NO.

If I were trusting MY soul to these men, I personally, would want to find and be able to prove what they are telling me in scripture.

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

If it doesn't agree with the bible, how can it be from God?

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 05:44 AM
The apostles supposed in their time that anyone who would undergo a baptism would live up to the belief of Christ.. people back then didn't just do such things in a spur of the moment, or under a hunch. To get a baptism in those times was to ultimately be marked for death if you were discovered with a belief contrary to Rome's paganism.

It's apparent that they viewed it necessary for salvation, as the bible states, to risk death.

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 06:16 AM
J
That pretty much disproves any salvific notion of baptism.

Why would I look to men for proof in understanding the bible?

The idea that baptism can not save you is from man, not scripture. When man reads 1 Pt. 3:21 they have a problem.
1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

It doesn't fit their understanding of truth, so they look at other passages to try and find ones that will disprove what 1 Pt. 3:21 says. I think it's wiser to look at other passage to try and understand why 1 Pt. 3:21 says what it says. Here is what I find.

It's how one becomes a Christian:
Matt. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

It's how we die and are resurrected with Christ:
Rom. 6:3...all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death......5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. Resurrection just as 1 Pt. 3:21 states.

It's how we put on Christ:
Gal. 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

It's how we access the blood for the forgiveness of sins:
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’


It's how we become God's people (spiritual Jews):
Gal. 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ....29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Col. 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism,

It's an appeal to God:
1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

When men try to discredit baptism, they will not use scriptures about baptism. That isn't wise and doesn't make sense when the bible contains passage that teach us about baptism.

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 06:20 AM
Not at all, since one must possess a proper inner disposition (faith) in baptism in order to be regenerated.

Do infants posses this?

Cruciform
July 31st, 2015, 03:39 PM
Have you listened to the tape of Jim Jones during the poisoning of his laity? It is absolutely desensitizing and gut wrenching, the most horrible thing I've ever listened to. It's when you start hearing the babies cry, you see..That man is in Hell, and that is that. And proves salvific baptism false.
Your conclusion here merely engages in a Non Sequitur Fallacy, as has already been shown in Post #347 above.

Cruciform
July 31st, 2015, 03:50 PM
Decisively answered for someone who, by their own admission, can't understand the bible so they believe what they are told.
Already answered and corrected (Post #338).


Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Addressed here (http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Bereans-and-Sola-Scriptura.pdf).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 04:00 PM
Already answered and corrected (Post #338).


Nope, that's garbage.


Addressed here (http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Bereans-and-Sola-Scriptura.pdf).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Not gonna read more rcc garbage.

YOUR accountable for YOUR own soul. Are you not proving what you are being taught? Can YOU prove it with the bible?

Cruciform
July 31st, 2015, 04:01 PM
Do infants posses this?


Faith is a necessary part of the Sacrament of Baptism. Opponents of infant Baptism typically argue that infants
have not reached the age of reason and therefore cannot make a faith decision to enter the Church (1 Jn. 5:10-15). However, just as the Israelite children did not choose to belong to the faith community, so the children of Christians need not choose to belong. In both cases, the children are incorporated into God’s family through the faith of their parents. In addition, The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1253). We should not overemphasize our response to God versus his gracious gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). This would mistakenly make our works seem more important than God’s gift. After all, We love, because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19), and this scriptural truth is especially true for infants. Any believer who prays for an unbeliever is also using his own faith to stand in for the faith of someone who lacks the capacity or disposition to believe (1 Cor. 7:12-16). We know that such prayer is not only licit, but encouraged. Infant Baptism reflects and deepens that truth.

Faith must continue to grow after Baptism because none of us, whether baptized as a child or adult, was baptized with a full and mature faith. Baptism is the source, the start, from which God’s graces become available and begin to flow to us (Catechism, no. 1254). While Christ said Baptism is essential for salvation, He did not say it guaranteed one salvation. An infant who grows up must, like any other believing Christian, persevere in faith and charity to be saved (Mt. 10:22).

http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/baptbabe.pdf


Also, see this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/why-do-catholics-baptize-babies-they-dont-know-whats-goin-on).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 04:05 PM
Faith is a necessary part of the Sacrament of Baptism. Opponents of infant Baptism typically argue that infants
have not reached the age of reason and therefore cannot make a faith decision to enter the Church (1 Jn. 5:10-15). However, just as the Israelite children did not choose to belong to the faith community, so the children of Christians need not choose to belong. In both cases, the children are incorporated into God’s family through the faith of their
parents. In addition, The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1253). We should not overemphasize our response to God versus his gracious gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). This would mistakenly make our works seem more important than God’s gift. After all, We love, because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19), and this scriptural truth is especially true for infants. Any believer who prays for an unbeliever is also using his own faith to stand in for the faith of someone who lacks the capacity or disposition to believe (1 Cor. 7:12-16). We know that such prayer is not only licit, but encouraged. Infant Baptism reflects and deepens that truth.

Faith must continue to grow after Baptism because none of us, whether baptized as a child or adult, was baptized with a full and mature faith. Baptism is the source, the start, from which God’s graces become available and begin to flow to us (Catechism, no. 1254). While Christ said Baptism is essential for salvation, He did not say it guaranteed one salvation. An infant who grows up must, like any other believing Christian, persevere in faith and charity to be saved (Mt. 10:22).

http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/baptbabe.pdf


Also, see this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/why-do-catholics-baptize-babies-they-dont-know-whats-goin-on).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Thanks for your explanation, I will read it and get back to you but I will not read the links. I've read them before and disagree with them. I would rather take a point and debate it with you.

Cruciform
July 31st, 2015, 04:06 PM
Nope, that's garbage.
So you claim, but have yet to in any way actually prove.


Not gonna read more rcc garbage.
Why, then, should I listen to any more of your Protestant garbage?


Your accountable for your own soul. Can YOU prove it with the bible?
Prove what?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 31st, 2015, 04:07 PM
Thanks for your explanation, I will read it and get back to you but I will not read the links. I've read them before and disagree with them. I would rather take a point and debate it with you.
Apparently, the effort of clicking on a link is just too strenuous for you...?

Cons&Spires
July 31st, 2015, 06:45 PM
It's apparent that they viewed it necessary for salvation, as the bible states, to risk death.

Baptism is an augmentation. No non-Catholic church teaches a notion that baptism is salvific. Most of them actually see it as symbolic, or a signature specifically to one's loyalty to a given church. Also, honestly, I don't think the Catholic Church necessarily teaches it as salvific either.
It may just be a completely heretical notion.

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 08:04 PM
Prove what?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I was thinking about our conversations today and wondered if you believe the teachings of the church have to agree with the bible. In other words, can the traditions and teachings of the church contradict the bible because, lets say, a change in culture?

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 08:06 PM
Baptism is an augmentation. No non-Catholic church teaches a notion that baptism is salvific. Most of them actually see it as symbolic, or a signature specifically to one's loyalty to a given church. Also, honestly, I don't think the Catholic Church necessarily teaches it as salvific either.
It may just be a completely heretical notion.

I don't care what any group is teaching. What I care about is scripture. What does this passage tell you?

1 Pt. 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

turbosixx
July 31st, 2015, 08:08 PM
Apparently, the effort of clicking on a link is just too strenuous for you...?

Not at all. If I want to understand the teachings of the church by reading articles, why do I need you? I would google it.

Cons&Spires
July 31st, 2015, 09:13 PM
I don't care what any group is teaching. What I care about is scripture. What does this passage tell you?

1 Pt. 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism is a signal of one's vow to God. It is done with witness, not in private.

It was a core way to establish one's faith, but is certainly not the only one. To say baptism is salvific is to say that not being baptized will condemn one- it's not the rite, but the action of stepping out and proclaiming one's faith where the augmentation lies.

Cruciform
July 31st, 2015, 11:19 PM
Not at all. If I want to understand the teachings of the church by reading articles, why do I need you? I would google it.
Either way, you're reading a written explanation and articulation of doctrinal content. Why, then, the complaint?

turbosixx
August 1st, 2015, 10:57 AM
Baptism is a signal of one's vow to God. It is done with witness, not in private.

It was a core way to establish one's faith, but is certainly not the only one. To say baptism is salvific is to say that not being baptized will condemn one- it's not the rite, but the action of stepping out and proclaiming one's faith where the augmentation lies.

What scriptures are you using to support this view?

turbosixx
August 1st, 2015, 11:08 AM
Either way, you're reading a written explanation and articulation of doctrinal content. Why, then, the complaint?

I'm just thinking of you. From what I've seen, all you are doing is parroting what the rcc says. I was hoping if you could use scriptures to prove to me what the rcc is teaching is from God, you would be proving it to yourself as well. By posting links and cut/paste, you haven't proven anything to me or yourself.

The links I have read can not be supported by scripture, such as infant baptism. For example:

"However, just as the Israelite children did not choose to belong to the faith community, so the children of Christians need not choose to belong."

Is this notion supported by scripture. There is no question it's part of the old, why because we read about it, but do we see it in the new and living way? Can we read about it in the new and living way?

kayaker
August 1st, 2015, 03:50 PM
Apparently, the effort of clicking on a link is just too strenuous for you...?


Not at all. If I want to understand the teachings of the church by reading articles, why do I need you? I would google it.

Ask Crucifer to click on John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV and unveil the succinct and explicit details of those two testimonies of these two witnesses: John 8:18 KJV. Well... I know it's not too strenuous for him, he can just hover them, ROFLOL!

Those two testimonies corroborate Jesus' divinity (John 8:12 KJV) being "the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV) meeting the IF-THEN condition for His 'believers' (John 8:30 KJV) to become His "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV). Or, are there no disciples of Jesus among the Catholic Church? Wasn't that the great commission of Matthew 28:19? Then, let a Catholic Disciple step forth and render up the details of those two testimonies!

Ain't gonna happen, T6. So, don't get your hopes up, friend. Crucifer's skill set is admonishing the Catholic Church for the last two millennia, when God's church began six millennia in Genesis 4:26 KJV.

kayaker

turbosixx
August 1st, 2015, 06:39 PM
Ask Crucifer to click on John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV and unveil the succinct and explicit details of those two testimonies of these two witnesses: John 8:18 KJV. Well... I know it's not too strenuous for him, he can just hover them, ROFLOL!

Those two testimonies corroborate Jesus' divinity (John 8:12 KJV) being "the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV) meeting the IF-THEN condition for His 'believers' (John 8:30 KJV) to become His "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV). Or, are there no disciples of Jesus among the Catholic Church? Wasn't that the great commission of Matthew 28:19? Then, let a Catholic Disciple step forth and render up the details of those two testimonies!

Ain't gonna happen, T6. So, don't get your hopes up, friend. Crucifer's skill set is admonishing the Catholic Church for the last two millennia, when God's church began six millennia in Genesis 4:26 KJV.

kayaker

My hopes aren't up but I am hoping. I've wanted to talk with catholics before but all the ones I know don't know anything, bible or church teachings. All but one don't even go to "mass".

Cruciform
August 1st, 2015, 09:21 PM
From what I've seen, all you are doing is parroting what the rcc says.
...just as everything you post here merely parrots what your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has told you.

The rest of your post has already been answered in previous posts above.

turbosixx
August 2nd, 2015, 09:00 AM
...just as everything you post here merely parrots what your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has told you.



This is where you are wrong and too blind to see. ALL I have ever posted is scripture.

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 11:28 AM
What scriptures are you using to support this view?

It's the lack of scripture telling that the rite of baptism is salvific which supports my view. Something of such importance is not going to be left out or not expounded on.

Also, baptism has been historically known to be a device of control, the archaic church's way of branding it's sheep so that if they mess up they can be called divergent and marked for persecution.

RevTestament
August 2nd, 2015, 11:43 AM
It's the lack of scripture telling that the rite of baptism is salvific which supports my view. Something of such importance is not going to be left out or not expounded on. All one has to do is a scripture search on "baptized" or "baptism" to see there is no lack of scripture on the subject. And they all show not only Jesus and the apostles were baptized but also converts. It was expressly instructed by Jesus. Paul himself was baptized, yet men still teach it isn't "necessary." It is "the token" of one's covenant with Him, and is representative of our resurrection in Him. When Paul is talking to church members in his epistles it is usually assumed they have been baptized. Without baptism one might get saved from hell experience, but they won't get resurrected in His covenant - just fyi.


Also, baptism has been historically known to be a device of control, the archaic church's way of branding it's sheep so that if they mess up they can be called divergent and marked for persecution.
Doesn't matter if one is baptized or not - historically if one taught different principles from the RCC for instance, they could be subject to inquisition. Baptism was probably the least of issues.

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 12:39 PM
All one has to do is a scripture search on "baptized" or "baptism" to see there is no lack of scripture on the subject. And they all show not only Jesus and the apostles were baptized but also converts. It was expressly instructed by Jesus. Paul himself was baptized, yet men still teach it isn't "necessary." It is "the token" of one's covenant with Him, and is representative of our resurrection in Him. When Paul is talking to church members in his epistles it is usually assumed they have been baptized. Without baptism one might get saved from hell experience, but they won't get resurrected in His covenant - just fyi.

It is not noted as being salvific.
Now, I'm all about reasonable deducing- not all things need to be literally stated.
But this is a special exception. The Bible is very thorough on what merits salvation, and tells you point blank. This is not the case with baptism.


Doesn't matter if one is baptized or not - historically if one taught different principles from the RCC for instance, they could be subject to inquisition. Baptism was probably the least of issues.

RCC doctrine is built on guilt. They could come and get you, and because of that stigma, no one would bat an eye.
A person without the privilege of being baptized and yet getting persecuted would raise concern. Unless of course they were Muslim or Jewish, but nonetheless, Christianity was always at war with itself just as much as anything else.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 12:56 PM
This is where you are wrong and too blind to see. ALL I have ever posted is scripture.
ALL you have ever posted are the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect's interpretations/applications of Scripture.

everready
August 2nd, 2015, 01:05 PM
...according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. But go ahead and offer an example of a Catholic teaching that you see as "against Scripture."


I interpret and understand Scripture all the time. I simply do so by comparing my understanding with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). You, by contrast, compare your understanding of Scripture with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Then explain how you buy your way out of purgatory, Peter had something to say about it what do you say?


everready

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 01:14 PM
Then explain...purgatory, Peter had something to say about it what do you say?
I say what Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) teaches according to Divine Revelation, which is this (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html) and this (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory_qa.html).

everready
August 2nd, 2015, 01:26 PM
I say what Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) teaches according to Divine Revelation, which is this (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html) and this (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory_qa.html).

Just spell it out in your own words, I'd like to hear how you can buy your way out of a place prepared for the devil and his angels.

What did Peter have to say about it, you say you study scripture.

everready

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 01:37 PM
Just spell it out in your own words, I'd like to hear how you can buy your way out of a place prepared for the devil and his angels.
You seem to assume that purgatory is the same as hell, which is simply not the case. Note: Only saved people experience purgatory. It is an intermediate state between this life and the fullness of heaven.

Also, one does not "buy his way out" of purgatory, as the sources I provided in my previous post explain. If you had read the cited sources, you wouldn't have needed to ask any of these questions, nor make any of these mistakes.


What did Peter have to say about it, you say you study scripture.
Peter makes a couple of statements about purgatory. Which one did you have in mind?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 03:09 PM
Purgatory is probably true. It's sensible, and I've seen no compelling argument against it. It's not really an opponent of Imputed Righteouness either, I don't understand the Protestant's beef with it, especially being that I am a protestant myself.

Just to edify the above.

turbosixx
August 2nd, 2015, 03:48 PM
ALL you have ever posted are the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect's interpretations/applications of Scripture.

I post things proven by scripture, something you CAN NOT do. You can not prove infant baptism from scripture because it's from MAN.

turbosixx
August 2nd, 2015, 04:02 PM
ALL you have ever posted are the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect's interpretations/applications of Scripture.

What's really sad is you stress my "man-made sect" but I worship God not man as you do. Keep lying to yourself and see where it gets you.


https://defendingcontending.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/pope-worship.jpg

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 04:09 PM
I post things proven by scripture, something you CAN NOT do.
I already have. The fact that you happen to prefer the opinions of your recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect certainly doesn't change that fact.


You can not prove infant baptism from scripture...
See above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 04:11 PM
What's really sad is you stress my "man-made sect"...
...which stands as fact despite any of your comments here.



...but I worship God...
So do I. Catholics worship God and God alone, as has already been demonstrated many times on this forum. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
August 2nd, 2015, 04:34 PM
Purgatory is probably true. It's sensible, and I've seen no compelling argument against it. It's not really an opponent of Imputed Righteouness either, I don't understand the Protestant's beef with it, especially being that I am a protestant myself.

Just to edify the above.
"Purgatory" is NOT true because of all the teachings concerning it. "Spirit prison" or "paradise" are the things the scriptures teach about - where Christ went according to 1 Peter 3 & 4. I for one cannot believe that "paradise" is purgatory. Purgatory is taught as a place for the punishment of everyone, however, if one dies in Christ, one is not punished - that was the purpose for His atonement. So the doctrine of purgatory and the teachings of the RCC are counter to the gospel of the atonement.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 05:11 PM
"Purgatory" is NOT true because of all the teachings concerning it. "Spirit prison" or "paradise" are the things the scriptures teach about - where Christ went according to 1 Peter 3 & 4. I for one cannot believe that "paradise" is purgatory. Purgatory is taught as a place for the punishment of everyone, however, if one dies in Christ, one is not punished - that was the purpose for His atonement. So the doctrine of purgatory and the teachings of the RCC are counter to the gospel of the atonement.
It's clear from this that you lack an accurate understanding of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. See Post #379 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
August 2nd, 2015, 06:18 PM
It's clear from this that you lack an accurate understanding of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. See Post #379 above.


No, I think I understand it perfectly.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.
So even the righteous must suffer for their sin according to the doctrine of purgatory. But of course this teaching is wrong, and is the opposite of what the scriptures are saying:
1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

So it was the disobedient souls Jesus went to spirit prison to teach - not the "righteous souls."
The righteous souls go to paradise like the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus.