ECT ST. AUGUSTINE ON THE TRUE CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST

DAN P

Well-known member
Catholics are "way off" in their presentation of the written word of God. (The Bible.)


Hi and not only are they NOR ON THE RADAR , in Acts 2:47 Only Christ ADDED to that EKKLESIA and Only Jesus was doing the SAVING !!



And in the dispensation of the Grace of God it is ONLY God that adds to the Body of Christ , 1 Cor n12:13 , do you get it ??

dan p
 
Last edited:

Cruciform

New member
Oh, that's right, the Pope is "infallible" when sitting on his throne, correct? So, whatever he tells you is gospel, right?
When he's teaching formal doctrine, yes. Just as the apostles taught infallibly when they delivered formal doctrine, such as in their canonical writings in the New Testament. So, whatever the apostles tell you is gospel, right?
 

Cruciform

New member
No, I make every effort to follow the Bible...
So does every single member of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in the world today, with more being concocted every week. Who, then---what human agent or agency---possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to interpret the Bible in a manner which is infallible and binding upon all believers? You? Your pastor? Your favorite author, radio personality, or TV preacher? Your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? One of the other thousands of Protestant sects? Think about it. Whose interpretations of Scripture are authoritative?

...and do not agree with your assertions on 'man made' religions..
You, like everyone else, have derived your ideas and beliefs from one or more human sources of information, that is, from some doctrinal tradition or traditions. If you're Baptist, you tend to read and interpret the Bible through a Baptist lens. If you're Lutheran, you see Scripture through a Lutheran lens. If you're Pentecostal, through a Pentecostal lens; if Methodist, through a Methodist lens; if Non-Denominational, through a Non-Denominational lens, and so forth. That's just the way in which human beings obtain and process information, and you are certainly no exception. We all do this, every one of us. So, again, what you're posting here will tend to reflect the doctrinal opinions that you have derived from whatever non-Catholic doctrinal tradition(s) you've decided to draw from throughout your life. In short: non-Catholics follow their traditions every bit as much as do Catholics.

I doubt that we will agree on much.
That will ultimately depend upon whether or not you choose to agree with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, or choose to reject them in favor of the opinions of your presently preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
The Message (Gospel) that the "Ascended Christ" gave to the Apostle Paul is the ONLY Gospel for today in this "Dispensation of Grace."
The entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. However, since they radically and categorically contradict and deny the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church, they must be rejected by all faithful believers as merely the corrupt traditions of men. Thanks anyway.
 

radind

New member
So does every single member of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in the world today, with more being concocted every week. Who, then---what human agent or agency---possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to interpret the Bible in a manner which is infallible and binding upon all believers? You? Your pastor? Your favorite author, radio personality, or TV preacher? Your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? One of the other thousands of Protestant sects? Think about it. Whose interpretations of Scripture are authoritative?


You, like everyone else, have derived your ideas and beliefs from one or more human sources of information, that is, from some doctrinal tradition or traditions. If you're Baptist, you tend to read and interpret the Bible through a Baptist lens. If you're Lutheran, you see Scripture through a Lutheran lens. If you're Pentecostal, through a Pentecostal lens; if Methodist, through a Methodist lens; if Non-Denominational, through a Non-Denominational lens, and so forth. That's just the way in which human beings obtain and process information, and you are certainly no exception. We all do this, every one of us. So, again, what you're posting here will tend to reflect the doctrinal opinions that you have derived from whatever non-Catholic doctrinal tradition(s) you've decided to draw from throughout your life. In short: non-Catholics follow their traditions every bit as much as do Catholics.


That will ultimately depend upon whether or not you choose to agree with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, or choose to reject them in favor of the opinions of your presently preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I don't advocate that anyone interprets the Bible 'infallibly' . I believe in the priesthood of each believer and think that each person is responsible for their beliefs and actions. So, I basically disagree with most of your assertions.
1 Peter 2:5-9
 

Cruciform

New member
I don't advocate that anyone interprets the Bible 'infallibly' .
  • Then you can never know with certainly that any particular Protestant interpretation is in fact absolutely correct and bindingly true. Doctrinal certainty is simply and functionally impossible. You are left with nothing but the mere fallible opinions of men.
  • Your opinion contradicts Jesus personal promise that the Holy Spirit would guide his one historic Church into all truth. If your above view is the case, you can never be sure whether or not you've been guided into any truth whatsoever, let alone into ALL truth. And Jesus' promise to his Church simply falls flat.
I believe in the priesthood of each believer...
The Catholic Church has believed and taught the priesthood of believers from the very beginning (that's where the so-called "reformers" got the idea, after all, though they re-defined it in accordance with their own novel ideas), though not in a way which rules out the clerical priesthood instituted by God. Both types of "priesthood" are true and right.

...and think that each person is responsible for their beliefs and actions.
Of course they are, but that doesn't answer the question of exactly HOW one come to know the truth, as opposed to merely the fallible opinions of men (see above).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

radind

New member
We are never going to agree. I will just have to do the best I can with the Bible and the help of the Holy Spirit. All men are fallible.
 

Cruciform

New member
I will just have to do the best I can with the Bible and the help of the Holy Spirit.
It certainly hasn't worked for the Protestant movement itself in the entire 500-year period between the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion and the present, has it. The practical result has been nothing but fragmentation and schism into tens-of-thousands of competing and contradictory non-Catholic sects and denominations, all claiming to go by "the Bible alone" (sola scriptura), but never able to arrive at theological agreement over even the essential doctrines of the faith. A hopeless chaos of interpretive subjectivism and doctrinal uncertainty.

All men are fallible.
QUESTION: Were the men (apostles) who wrote the New Testament documents teaching infallibly, or fallibly, when they penned their canonical writings?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

radind

New member
It certainly hasn't worked for the Protestant movement itself in the entire 500-year period between the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion and the present, has it. The practical result has been nothing but fragmentation and schism into tens-of-thousands of competing and contradictory non-Catholic sects and denominations, all claiming to go by "the Bible alone" (sola scriptura), but never able to arrive at theological agreement over even the essential doctrines of the faith. A hopeless chaos of interpretive subjectivism and doctrinal uncertainty.


QUESTION: Were the men (apostles) who wrote the New Testament documents teaching infallibly, or fallibly, when they penned their canonical writings?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

In my opinion, the best approach would be to rely on the Bible without any man-made additions.
I believe that the Bible was written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but do not think that the men were infallible.
2 Peter 1:20–21
2 Timothy 3:16–1
 

Cruciform

New member
In my opinion, the best approach would be to rely on the Bible without any man-made additions.
Already answered---and decisively corrected---in Post #130 above.

I believe that the Bible was written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but do not think that the men were infallible.
In their canonical writings, did the apostles teach infallibly, yes or no? :think:
 
Last edited:

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
13413754_1180594658657514_5319782509760300746_n.jp  g




Saint Augustine = Great Catholic, great Christian, great Bishop, great Doctor of the Church.


 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
I don't advocate that anyone interprets the Bible 'infallibly' . I believe in the priesthood of each believer and think that each person is responsible for their beliefs and actions. So, I basically disagree with most of your assertions.
1 Peter 2:5-9

Do you think the writers of the scriptures wrote errors? If not (and I do not by the way) then how did mere men write inerrant scriptures?
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
I think that the writers were guided by the Holy Spirit. In the present, I don't think that any man is infallible.

Oooohh... so, so close. When we say "infallible" we mean that God prevents the pope from making an error at certain times in history, just as he did with the sacred authors.

See, your argument is not with Papal Infallibility, your argument is with what you wrongly think we mean by Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is an act of God at a certain point in time, not an attribute of the man.

Give that some thought.
 

radind

New member
Oooohh... so, so close. When we say "infallible" we mean that God prevents the pope from making an error at certain times in history, just as he did with the sacred authors.

See, your argument is not with Papal Infallibility, your argument is with what you wrongly think we mean by Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is an act of God at a certain point in time, not an attribute of the man.

Give that some thought.

I don't agree that a pope is needed at all. I prefer less organization in general for religious groups.
 
Oooohh... so, so close. When we say "infallible" we mean that God prevents the pope from making an error at certain times in history, just as he did with the sacred authors.

See, your argument is not with Papal Infallibility, your argument is with what you wrongly think we mean by Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is an act of God at a certain point in time, not an attribute of the man.

Give that some thought.

Well, you got me thinking. That explains the problem with Francis, then. How long do you guys generally wait for a Pope to say something right?

My pastor has given a zillion sermons, and I can't recall him ever putting his foot in his mouth, saying anything not true to doctrines of the Holy Bible. I wouldn't attend his church, if I had to wait for his historic mouth to converge with truth. But I do think your Pope could also be right about things on a regular basis, like any good Christian pastor, with some study, take a break from pandering to Muslims and homosexuals, staging Quran readings, meeting with televangelist charlatans or politicians, and attend Sunday school.

If you guys are in touch with him, let me know if he'd like some pamphlets on who to get in touch with, as long as he doesn't mind learning the gospel with some younger people, who may be a bit ahead of him as to Christian doctrine.

But thanks for that understanding, that the Pope is mainly fallible, except on special occasions, though, frankly, everybody can already see this. As things stand, the best thing that could happen for you guys would be for Francis to take a vow of silence. This may be his only shot at infallibility.
 
^ I don't expect you to accept it, but at least you understand it. For a little perspective, there have been only three infallible statements in the last 200 years. It's very rare.

I don't think he'll read any pamphlets though. :)

If you're interested: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Boy, I didn't know that! That's good to hear. Wouldn't it also be great if we could say there have only been three train wrecks, the past couple hundred years?

You seem capable of addressing more than Torquemada's talking points. (I'm probably not the only one just bored of the Dark Ages version of a Chatty Cathy doll somebody keeps pulling the string on that proclaims, "Heretics!" "Because we say so!") Do you know how they explain reversing previously infallible stuff? I take it things that make the Catechism are infallible, as I've never heard a Roman Catholic admit parts of the Catechism are a crock everybody knows, even most Catholics, are a crock, and new religion you whip-up and insert in your book must be infallible, is that so? (By the way, besides the forever vacuous, "Because Rome says so!", testifying of yourselves, why not the Book of Mormon, too? They added to the word of God and also testisfy their additions are inspired.)

I know, at one time, non-Catholics just went to hell, pure and simple, and that you just liked to torture and burn us alive, as well as any and all scripture in sight, doing this in service of the merciful and loving Lord Jesus, the Prince of Peace, of course. Or maybe Mary ordered the genocide, I don't know. Anyway, we're going to hell, after being tortured and burned alive by you guys, then, at some point, you guys decided we're just broken or handicapped Christians, but that it's perhaps possible believing the gospel Jesus Christ and the apostles taught could result in a few of us limping into some Roman heaven. As I recall, this didn't have anything to do with repentance of greivous sin, infallible crimes against humanity, that it was about the time Protestant monarchs began to appear, and, also, however misguided, demonstrated they also knew how to use matches, on a much smaller scale, though. Whatever, how your infallibility goes from anathema to, "Oh, alright," seems to have most to do with not finding your own medicine palatable, as opposed to this morphing of infallibility being a theological conclusion scripture supports, to whit, torture murder is infallibly evil. In Catholic history, how do you explain being of infallibility and these major, bloody, criminal breaches of basic moral laws of scripture and Godly love, which are, at best, bestial? Come on, Christian serial killers, serial torture murderers? Can't you guys see the no-brainer aspect of this being the work, the fruits, of Satan? Isn't it also true there's no such thing as infallible psychos?

I must admit I find it all confusing, mostly reconciling things. For example, you have the lies. I mean, come on, let's get real: indulgences, purgatory, statues of Mary with bleeding eyeballs, enough apostle and saint bones scattered around Europe to build a T. Rex, scapular mojo, perpetual virginity, cannabalism, praying to a host of dead people? As to the latter, do you really believe dead people are omnipresent, are hearing prayers? Based upon what doctrine of God do a host of Catholics go to heaven and become intercessors? And do they censor Protestant prayers, before they can reach the Lord? Suppose a Protestant prays somebody doesn't get sucked into Catholicism? Do you guys divert those prayers in heaven? After all, you can't burn our prayers. Speaking of which, again, seems so inescapable, that nobody can be of the Spirit and John 8:44. But I digress, and know you guys find scripture annoying and inconvenient. Sorry. But I would be curious the three things Popes got right the past 200 years, can only hope he reversed some more of the previously infallible stuff. Or are they just statements like, say post-Pasteur, "There are slobber germs all over my ring," or, "We sure look silly in these outfits," things of some obvious metaphysical certitude?

Anyway, three things in 200 years? You guys are on a roll! It must be a hectic schedule. With Francis, you probably won't have to worry about a fourth infallible utterance anytime soon, at least if the statement must actually relate to Christianity, though Roman Catholicism does have a history of not having to be even tangential to any doctrine in scripture, but at least some infallible utterance should have some Christian credulity, right? Yes? No? Do you know where there's a list of infallible stuff? I've got popcorn, if you've got a link.

Collossians 2

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Revelation 22

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

Matthew 15

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

2 Timothy 4

1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
 
Top