What would make you Catholic?

Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
glassjester said:
Sorry to butt in, but this is a silly point to try to make.

Cruciform is saying his choice is man-made, but he chose an objectively true Church.

A fallible human can believe something that is infallibly true. Is that not possible?

Try this: What is 1 + 1?

A) 2 B) 4 C) 6


If you picked A, and I picked B, can I really claim that both our choices are equally valid since they were both made by fallible human minds?

Or is one of those fallible human choices (yours and mine) objectively correct?
Click to expand...
:thumb:​
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Lon said:
Because it is only a platitude at that point, which is what I am belaboring. It is you asserting one and then using some crafted language to humanize my decision. God is Sovereign over both. You expect to find an institution rather than a body, established by Christ. Such is an organizational expectation. Okay, you found what you were looking for. Great, this thread is about "why" I, particularly am not buying into the Catholic church or this line of thinking so that is why I restate. You are trying to assert something as a 'fact' that isn't seen as one, by me. -Lon
Click to expand...
Post #539
 
Cedarbay

Cedarbay

New member
Lon said:
Because it is only a platitude at that point, which is what I am belaboring. It is you asserting one and then using some crafted language to humanize my decision. God is Sovereign over both. You expect to find an institution rather than a body, established by Christ. Such is an organizational expectation.

Okay, you found what you were looking for. Great, this thread is about "why" I, particularly am not buying into the Catholic church or this line of thinking so that is why I restate. You are trying to assert something as a 'fact' that isn't seen as one, by me. -Lon
Click to expand...
This is a respectful post, Lon, and one I agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
glassjester said:
Sorry to butt in, but this is a silly point to try to make.

Cruciform is saying his choice is man-made, but he chose an objectively true Church.
Click to expand...
But uses that designation as a club, regardless if he believes it is true or not. His is "the one true church set up by Jesus Christ" while all contenders are "recently man-made sects" as well as any other number of disqualifiers. His expectation is looking at organizations BUT I've given other churches in thread that have lasted as long as the Roman Catholic church has. Such is not overtly concerned with his disagreement on that point, and I really don't care much about 'recent,' but 'man-made' isn't recognizing a Sovereign God. It is a bit of mudsling, dirty politics. It is probably called for in the face of Protestant remarks and jibs, but I never use those.

glassjester said:
A fallible human can believe something that is infallibly true. Is that not possible?

Try this: What is 1 + 1?

A) 2 B) 4 C) 6
Click to expand...
One plus one, what? And are the answers categorical? I've sat in seats C before. This, not to be daft, but to explain that some things fit our expectations and this does not always mean they are the correct or only answer. In this case, we are talking about our expectation of churches. My faith is, speaking relative to Christ's church, new. So "recent" can apply, but I'm not thinking that is what Cruci means by it. He generally means that mine is not made or held together by Christ Jesus the Lord. That is a superiority complex waiting to happen and imho, doesn't serve anything or anyone on TOL. Neither does Protestant jibs and jibes, but again I don't do them and don't appreciate them. They tend to just offend for offense's sake.

glassjester said:
If you picked A, and I picked B, can I really claim that both our choices are equally valid since they were both made by fallible human minds?
Click to expand...
Because there is contention, yes. I chose "C" remember? It made both logical and practical sense at that point.
glassjester said:
Or is one of those fallible human choices (yours and mine) objectively correct?
Click to expand...
Both are objective. The friction here is what is being asked. If all a Catholic wants to do on TOL is assert Catholic superiority on things that aren't mutual concerns, then you might as well start a thread "King of the Hill against all takers" and "My Church is better than your Church."

THIS thread asked why I wasn't Catholic. I'm attempting to continue to explain 'why' that is true. Where is there a need of "recent human-made" in a discussion of why I am not Catholic? Is it supposed to get me to say "Oh! You are right! How could I follow this one when your's makes so much more sense and has been around a lot longer than mine?"

In fact, I see mine as part of that heritage. The only assumption I think, that has meaning, is why I'm separate, because as far as legacy, I have the same one. I come from a Catholic church BUT I don't believe where I attend is as important as Who I belong to (which is my understanding of what church really means). Someone else wrote similar, I'm again, just trying to explain why I am not a Catholic, why the RC won't change to incorporate us, and why that isn't meaningful anyway.
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
Lon said:
So what I mean by Formal sufficiency is 1) a bit different than most because I do believe we must be correctable and so orthodox if not Orthodox.
Click to expand...

Corrected by whom? What are the teachings of little-o orthodoxy?


Lon said:
2) In that sense, yes, Formal sufficiency as well, but not alone. The student must share all things with his/her teacher.
Click to expand...

What if two teachers disagree?
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
glassjester said:
Corrected by whom? What are the teachings of little-o orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not hung up on little o big O. The Catholic and Orthodox churches tend to be. To me, it is a matter of which doctrines are biblical, hence orthodox. I do understand you come from different expectations regarding what O/orthodox is.

glassjester said:
What if two teachers disagree?
Click to expand...
John Mark went with Barnabas. Acts 15:36-39 God was Sovereign over that disagreement, just as He was over the RC and EO split etc.
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
Lon said:
To be honest, I'm not hung up on little o big O. The Catholic and Orthodox churches tend to be. To me, it is a matter of which doctrines are biblical, hence orthodox.
Click to expand...


The problem with this ideology is that two contradictory doctrines can be equally "biblical." Every heresy has its proof texts.

Maybe a specific example would be worth talking about. What's the biblical-hence-orthodox teaching on infant baptism?


Lon said:
Acts 15:36-39
Click to expand...

Was that a teaching/doctrinal disagreement?
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
glassjester said:
The problem with this ideology is that two contradictory doctrines can be equally "biblical." Every heresy has its proof texts.

Maybe a specific example would be worth talking about. What's the biblical-hence-orthodox teaching on infant baptism?




Was that a teaching/doctrinal disagreement?
Click to expand...
Show me the scriptural basis for infant baptism.
 
everready

everready

New member
INFANT BAPTISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SENDING MORE PEOPLE TO HELL

INFANT BAPTISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SENDING MORE PEOPLE TO HELL

INFANT BAPTISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SENDING MORE PEOPLE TO HELL THAN ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS ERROR.

Infant baptism appeared in the Christian church history around the Second Century, coming from the pagan influences of Baal Worship, as we will show later, but It came about as a result of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration - the teaching that baptism is essential to salvation; or, if you want to turn it around, that water baptism saves the soul (or at least is a part of a person's salvation).

Consequently, as the teaching of baptismal regeneration started being propagated, it was natural for those holding to this doctrine to believe that everyone, should be baptized as soon as possible. Thus, baptism of infants still in the innocent state (and as yet unaccountable for their actions) came into vogue among many of the churches.

Once again I state: These two grievous errors baptismal regeneration and infant baptism - have probably caused more people to go to hell than any other doctrine.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/infant_baptism_exposed.htm


everready
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
glassjester said:
You asked.



And got two quick answers.




And... crickets.
Click to expand...

I did not ask if the Lutherans were right. I asked if it was scriptural to which Crux. immediately brought in one of his websites instead of relying on his own scholarship.
 
Cedarbay

Cedarbay

New member
Bright Raven said:
I did not ask if the Lutherans were right. I asked if it was scriptural to which Crux. immediately brought in one of his websites instead of relying on his own scholarship.
Click to expand...
We've been having a discussion about baptism at another forum and I was surprised at the number of people who believe in credo (believers) baptism only. Seems to be mostly Baptist or Congregational, true?
 
H

HisServant

New member
glassjester said:
You asked.



And got two quick answers.




And... crickets.
Click to expand...

No... we got a link with zero scholarship and just a list of unrelated verses.

Prove to me why baptism is still applicable today.... scripture indicates when water baptism was to be stopped... yet protestant and catholic alike still do it.. why?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top