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

[jsanford108]

During the laying of the foundation, there were churches established, churches were the people’s homes where they got together to read and share the books and letters from the writers of the New Testament, and to hear the visiting apostle, to hear the truth for the first time.

The Catholic church is nothing like the churches of the New Testament times.

While your first statement is accurate, people gathered together to learn about Christ. However, examine the New Testament letters. They are addressed to the Church or Churches of (insert location). People gathering in their homes were locations of persecution. However, many places, such as Corinth, Thessalonia, etc, had established Churches. Literal locations built and organized. Not people's homes. This is evidenced in Acts, and in the salutations of the letters.

So while your statement has partial truth, it is not wholly true.

The second point, being the Catholic Church is nothing like the Churches of the NT, is completely false. This can be evidenced from many early sources, both Christian and Secular. Such as John, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, etc. I can provide the evidence of you would like, as well as respective dates.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[God's Truth]

During the laying of the foundation.....ok. Sure. During the laying of the foundation.

What happens after a foundation has been laid? Just leave it at that? Always a foundation and nothing else?

We do not have to go to a church to see the written Word. We have the scriptures.

Naw. Build up the Church over time.

Yeah, the Church today looks different today than then.

The Catholic church is nothing like the church of the New Testament times...no altars with statues and pictures, no 'father' bowing to those images and incensing them, no priests with long flowing robes praying to Mary and having the parishioners bow to the statues and pray to Mary too.

So what? Jesus said it would look like a mustard seed that grows over time. And it did.

Jesus said that about an individual's faith.

1st century Christians had some New Testament writings, and some writings that didn't end up being in the New Testament. But they didn't have a New Testament.

Of course they had a New Testament. The New Testament is a few books and the rest letters.

Should we not have a New Testament because they didn't either?

Again, they had the New Testament.

And you left out the part about sharing in the breaking of the bread in those early home churches.(Acts 2:42)

How do you get that I left it out?

 

[God's Truth]

Then why are there so many differences in Christianity? Is God not doing a good job of giving people understanding?

Why blame God and not the people and their lacking in obedience?

Or are all people just not obeying good enough to gain understanding?

Better to say that then blame God for not doing a good job.

And so begins the massive merry go-round of each person believing that they have the truth and anyone who disagrees with them doesn't.

Are you giving your denomination a special ticket to that truth, even though they do not obey God?

We are back to too many belly-buttons again.

So tell me...if two Christians love God, and obey Him, but disagree....how can we tell who knows what God says and means and who doesn't?

God says that Satan ensnares people to teach false doctrines.

We have to be careful.

We are to check the scriptures to see if what we are taught is true.

Many hold on to their false teachings and have an almost impossible time letting any of it go.

For example, some Christians will say we can never lose our salvation, some say we can.

Jesus warns us for a reason. We have many scriptures warning us.

Some will say we should baptize infants some will say we shouldn't.

We have to repent to be baptized. Infants do not repent.

We've even already had a difference of opinion in what is meant by "the gates of hell" in Matthew 16.

I know we have a difference, because you said what men taught you and not what God says.

How can we tell whose is right?

Where can we turn to find the foundation of those truths?

Lean not on your understanding, but in all ways do what God says, and He will show you.

 

[God's Truth]

Hey GT,

So this is quite interesting. You read my words to mean that I thought your list of paraphrasing various parts of scripture is a bad thing. To me, it was not a bad thing but merely an honest observation I made.

We cannot even understand what each other means in a simple dialogue.

Yet we think we are going to pick up a Bible which was written over thousands of years, by multiple authors, in different languages, in different genres...we are gonna pick that up and just know what it means because the Holy Spirit will guide us.

But Christians do not agree on what the Bible says. Is the Holy Spirit not going His job well enough?

Trust what Jesus says.
Jesus says that if you obey his teachings, he WILL REVEAL himself to you.

John 14:21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him."

Or maybe Jesus left a different way for us to understand, perhaps?

Jesus is the Way.

We are to search for God and we will find Him.

Searching for God is searching for Jesus' teachings.

We find God by obeying Jesus' teachings.

Or maybe Jesus left a different way for us to understand, perhaps?
The list you made in an earlier post demonstrates that you have many misconceptions of what the Catholic Church teaches. Much of what you stated isn't even true.

But we'd have to tackle that one topic at a time.

You are very wrong. I know what the Catholic church teaches.

Or maybe Jesus left a different way for us to understand, perhaps?

I agree. My denial does not prove anything about the truth or falsehood of your concerns. And, like I said before, neither does creating that list of supposed disobediences.

Those would have to be examined one at a time.

I will listen to your excuses, and then lead you back to God's Truth as stated in the scriptures.

No, you paraphrased scriptures from various different parts of the Bible.

I spoke what the scriptures say and even gave the scripture reference.

You will have to try to prove that I have done something that I did not do.

Just creating a list of paraphrased scripture verses does not prove that the Catholic Church is in error.

That remains to be seen.

You need to stop saying that I just paraphrased, and you need to prove that what I said is different from what scripture says. You have done neither.

Good. 'Cause I gotta go too. I will try to be on later tonight as well.

I had time to come back sooner than I thought, but not for long.

See you later tonight.

Peace to you.

...and also with you.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus is the Head of the Church. Christians are His body. He isn't the whole Church.

The scriptures plainly say that His body is the church.

You have to believe what is written.

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.

Ephesians 1:22 And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of His body.

What does Paul mean...."what is lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions"?

What was lacking?

Paul is explaining that his own suffering benefits the church.

 

[God's Truth]

While your first statement is accurate, people gathered together to learn about Christ. However, examine the New Testament letters. They are addressed to the Church or Churches of (insert location). People gathering in their homes were locations of persecution. However, many places, such as Corinth, Thessalonia, etc, had established Churches.

The church in Corinth...it was at Aquila and Prisca's HOUSE:

1 Corinthians 16:19
The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.


The established churches were at people's homes, AND, the city of their location was used.

Literal locations built and organized. Not people's homes. This is evidenced in Acts, and in the salutations of the letters.

Give the scriptures that say they built buildings and called them churches.

As for the churches in Acts, the scripture plainly says he tried to destroy the church going from house to house.

Acts 8:3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.


The scriptures prove that the church is not a building, but rather, a place where those who are in Christ come to meet.

Romans 16:5 Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5Greet also the church that meets at their house.

So while your statement has partial truth, it is not wholly true.

What I said was true, and what you said is nowhere in the scriptures. You even said that they did not meet at anyone's house in Corinth, but I gave you scripture that proved you wrong.

The second point, being the Catholic Church is nothing like the Churches of the NT, is completely false. This can be evidenced from many early sources, both Christian and Secular. Such as John, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, etc. I can provide the evidence of you would like, as well as respective dates.

I only go by the Holy Bible.

 

[jsanford108]

The church in Corinth...it was at Aquila and Prisca's HOUSE:

1 Corinthians 16:19
The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.


The established churches were at people's homes, AND, the city of their location was used.



Give the scriptures that say they built buildings and called them churches.

As for the churches in Acts, the scripture plainly says he tried to destroy the church going from house to house.

Acts 8:3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.


The scriptures prove that the church is not a building, but rather, a place where those who are in Christ come to meet.

Romans 16:5 Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5Greet also the church that meets at their house.



What I said was true, and what you said is nowhere in the scriptures. You even said that they did not meet at anyone's house in Corinth, but I gave you scripture that proved you wrong.



I only go by the Holy Bible.

First, I never said people didn't meet in houses. I even stated that your point claiming such was what rendered it partially true.

Second, there were established Churches. They are mentioned in Acts, and in the salutations. You just gloss over that because it "also mentions" people's homes. People can meet in homes and it not be a "church" (ie: modern day bible studies).

Third, what were they studying in these homes? The only "scripture" was the Old Testament. The only "Gospels" at these times was oral. Not written. And certainly not collected and produced en masse.

Fourth, you have "only the Holy Bible." Not early Christian and secular sources. By this logic, anything outside is useless. So Washington was never President of the U.S. It isn't in the Bible. Only in secular, Christian, and oral sources. You see the faulty logic in such reasoning? It cannot withstand basic criticism.

And finally, how do you know the Bible is an authoritative source?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Of course they do. Catholicism is man's effort to becoming pleasing to God by the works of the law. A work of the law is any religious thing that one might do.

Like having a saving faith in Christ? Is that a religious thing that one might do?

How about forgiving other people when they sin against us. Is that a religious thing that one might do?

Repenting of sins. Is that a religious thing that one might do?

Loving our neighbor as ourself. Is that a religious thing one might do?

I know you have a tendency to make up your own definitions, so what about the things mentioned above?

Do they not count as religious things one might do? If not, why not? What makes them "not religious"?

The first one can be found in John 3:16 and the other three were commands given by Jesus Himself, you know.

Listen to what Paul says, "Therefore by the deeds of the law (religion) there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20.

Would Paul say that the deeds mentioned above are deeds of the law or not, do you think?

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

We do not have to go to a church to see the written Word. We have the scriptures.

Some people do. Some don't. Some people cannot read, they are illiterate. What good does a Bible do for someone who cannot read? Millions of people throughout the last 2000 years have been illiterate and still are today. And the printing press wasn't even invented until like the 15th century or something. How did people get their New Testaments before the printing press was invented I wonder?

The Catholic church is nothing like the church of the New Testament times...no altars with statues and pictures, no 'father' bowing to those images and incensing them, no priests with long flowing robes praying to Mary and having the parishioners bow to the statues and pray to Mary too.

Oh, I'll grant you that things have changed. Like the parable of the mustard seed that I mentioned earlier.
You haven't been to a Catholic Mass in quite awhile, have you? Well, I've been to both Catholic and non-Catholic services in the last few years. The Catholic Mass is more scripturally saturated and more Christo-centric than any non-Catholic worship service I've ever been to.

Jesus said that about an individual's faith.

Well, he did say that about having faith the size of a mustard seed and being able to move mountains. But that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32 where Jesus says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed that grows to be a bush/tree that houses the birds of the air.

The point is that the mustard seed (the Church) changes over time. It grows. It doesn't just stay a little mustard seed.

Of course they had a New Testament. The New Testament is a few books and the rest letters.

Really? How about in 40 A.D. Did they have a New Testament then? No. No books or letters of the New Testament had even been written yet. But the Church was growing. How about 60 A.D.? Have a New Testament then? Nope. Not all of the books that eventually would become part of the New Testament had been written yet. How about 150 A.D.? Did they have a New Testament then? Nope. All of the writings had been completed...along with a bunch of other ones that didn't end up making it into the New Testament. But that decision hadn't been made yet.

Which books belonged in the New Testament and which ones didn't wasn't decided upon officially until about 350 years after the death of Christ.

The first century church did not have a New Testament as we know it.

But that's ok.....that's part of the mustard seed growth thing.

Again, they had the New Testament.

No, they really didn't. Here is an article from a Protestant website: https://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

How do you get that I left it out?

Just because you didn't mention it. The early church partook of the breaking of the bread. Do you do that where you currently worship? Just curious.

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Why blame God and not the people and their lacking in obedience?

Better to say that then blame God for not doing a good job.

I didn't blame God. I asked a question.

So according to that thinking....if Christians do not agree, all we can know for sure is that somebody (or everybody) is lacking in obedience.

But as far as what the Truth is....we cannot know that for sure.

Not a very solid foundation for Christianity. And not a very convincing set up for anyone to want to become a Christian. "Come join us. And get some Truth mixed with some Falsehood no matter where you go."

Are you giving your denomination a special ticket to that truth, even though they do not obey God?

Two things. First, you have repeatedly stated that Catholics do not obey God...but you haven't yet shown that. Pick one topic if you would like to discuss something.

Second, no. I only give that special ticket to Jesus Christ. And He said He would build HIS Church in the 1st century, and He promised that He would be with it always, and deception and lies would not prevail against it.

Since He is God, I believe Him and I believe He is powerful enough to protect His Church from teaching error.

Why do you not believe that?

God says that Satan ensnares people to teach false doctrines.

People can teach false doctrines. But Jesus' Church cannot. Because it is Jesus' Church. He protects it. I trust Him and I trust that He can do that, being God and all.

God (Jesus) says that He would always be with His Church and if false doctrines are taught by His Church then He failed and the gates of hell prevailed.

We have to be careful.

We are to check the scriptures to see if what we are taught is true.

I agree. Although I think that is problematic for the millions of people who could not do that over the centuries due to illiteracy.

Many hold on to their false teachings and have an almost impossible time letting any of it go.

I don't doubt that.

Jesus warns us for a reason. We have many scriptures warning us.

Yup.

We have to repent to be baptized. Infants do not repent.

Nope. Only those who have committed sins need to repent. Infants do not need to repent because they have not committed sins. They cannot.

I know we have a difference, because you said what men taught you and not what God says.

You don't know that. You can't know that without claiming some sort of omniscient ability to know what God says to me. So you don't know that.

Do you think it is possible that it is the other way around? That you said what men taught you and not what God says? Is that a possibility?

Lean not on your understanding, but in all ways do what God says, and He will show you.

Amen.

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Trust what Jesus says.
Jesus says that if you obey his teachings, he WILL REVEAL himself to you.

John 14:21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him."

What are the teachings to be obeyed?

Jesus is the Way.

We are to search for God and we will find Him.

Searching for God is searching for Jesus' teachings.

We find God by obeying Jesus' teachings.

Which teachings?

You are very wrong. I know what the Catholic church teaches.

Well, you might. But your earlier post certainly didn't show that. Just one example, you stated that we are to worship God alone implying that Catholics do not do that. But the Catholic Church has always emphatically declared that humans are only ever to worship the One, True, God.

I will listen to your excuses, and then lead you back to God's Truth as stated in the scriptures.

You know, phrasing it like that has quite a sharp edge to it. Makes me cringe a little bit. Sounds a bit triumphalistic and condescending. Just saying.

I spoke what the scriptures say and even gave the scripture reference.

You will have to try to prove that I have done something that I did not do.

You need to stop saying that I just paraphrased, and you need to prove that what I said is different from what scripture says. You have done neither.

Here's your proof then. I think it was in post #34:

The Catholic church and its people do not obey God.

God says don't call your brothers in Christ 'father';

Unless you actually cite a reference and version, that is a paraphrase. You didn't cite any references to these paraphrases. Even though you said you did.

pray only to God;

book, chapter, verse, and translation here will clear up a lot for me. Thanks.

worship only God; Jesus is the one who mediates; do not make statues and bow to them; do not say you follow a mere man.

Same with these.

Mind you, I never said that I didn't agree with you about these. But I did say that they are paraphrases from various places in Scripture.

Unless you are using a translation that I am unfamiliar with (which very well could be)they look like paraphrases to me.

And you did not leave the reference so I cannot check them.

Those are many of the things Catholics do not obey.

I disagree. You will have to prove that claim. Just stating it doesn't make it true.

Again, take worship only God. Well, the Catholic Church has proclaimed that for 2000 years. If you believe that it teaches something different....like to worship something or somebody else....well, you'll have to prove that.

Catholics call their brothers in Christ 'father'; they pray to Mary and other "Saints"; they bow to the pope; they use Mary as a mediator; they say they follow Peter; they bow to statues and incense them...

All of these are completely biblical and I can prove it.

But I will not until you select one at a time.

Dang. I'm having such a hard time being concise.

Peace.



I had time to come back sooner than I thought, but not for long.

See you later tonight.



...and also with you. [/QUOTE]

 

[God's Truth]

First, I never said people didn't meet in houses. I even stated that your point claiming such was what rendered it partially true.

No, I spoke the truth.

Second, there were established Churches. They are mentioned in Acts, and in the salutations. You just gloss over that because it "also mentions" people's homes. People can meet in homes and it not be a "church" (ie: modern day bible studies).

The scriptures do not say they made a church building.

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

All those things are against God's Truth.

Third, what were they studying in these homes? The only "scripture" was the Old Testament. The only "Gospels" at these times was oral. Not written. And certainly not collected and produced en masse.

They shared the books and the LETTERS.

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

Fourth, you have "only the Holy Bible." Not early Christian and secular sources. By this logic, anything outside is useless. So Washington was never President of the U.S. It isn't in the Bible. Only in secular, Christian, and oral sources. You see the faulty logic in such reasoning? It cannot withstand basic criticism.

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

And finally, how do you know the Bible is an authoritative source?

So now you are questioning the Bible?

 

[God's Truth]

Some people do. Some don't. Some people cannot read, they are illiterate. What good does a Bible do for someone who cannot read? Millions of people throughout the last 2000 years have been illiterate and still are today. And the printing press wasn't even invented until like the 15th century or something. How did people get their New Testaments before the printing press was invented I wonder?

The false teachers will be judged more harshly for a reason.

As for us now, you have no excuse.

When I was growing up, I had an older father who was taught that you do not read the Bible without a priest or nun to explain it to you.

Just imagine how, when I at the age of about 11 would take the family Bible to my room to read. The look of horror on my mom's face and not wanting my dad to find out.

It even said in the Catholic Bible to not read without a priest or nun.

Many do not have any excuse.

Oh, I'll grant you that things have changed. Like the parable of the mustard seed that I mentioned earlier.
You haven't been to a Catholic Mass in quite awhile, have you? Well, I've been to both Catholic and non-Catholic services in the last few years. The Catholic Mass is more scripturally saturated and more Christo-centric than any non-Catholic worship service I've ever been to.

The Catholic church is not supposed to change.

Well, he did say that about having faith the size of a mustard seed and being able to move mountains. But that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32 where Jesus says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed that grows to be a bush/tree that houses the birds of the air.

That is about individual people.

The point is that the mustard seed (the Church) changes over time. It grows. It doesn't just stay a little mustard seed.
Really? How about in 40 A.D. Did they have a New Testament then? No. No books or letters of the New Testament had even been written yet.

Don't you read what I post? I already explained with scripture that the letters and books that they shared were and are the scriptures.

But the Church was growing. How about 60 A.D.? Have a New Testament then? Nope. Not all of the books that eventually would become part of the New Testament had been written yet. How about 150 A.D.? Did they have a New Testament then? Nope. All of the writings had been completed...along with a bunch of other ones that didn't end up making it into the New Testament. But that decision hadn't been made yet.

Which books belonged in the New Testament and which ones didn't wasn't decided upon officially until about 350 years after the death of Christ.

Officially? hahahaha

Many think the Catholics determined what books were to be included in the Bible, because they over the centuries publicly listed the books that they used. There were canons put together and used by people even before the Catholics. Different people gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.
The Catholic denominations started to introduce heresies in approximately 310 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church, which taught things contrary to the Bible, began with the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. The Catholics continued to bring in many false teachings.
Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning.
The New Testament teachings were by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.

Again, the believers from the beginning used these books and letters from the start. That is what determined these books as scripture.

Just because you didn't mention it. The early church partook of the breaking of the bread. Do you do that where you currently worship? Just curious.

The Catholics teach that the priest is a tool to turn the bread and wine into the real blood and flesh of Jesus.

You do not break bread as the people in the New Testament do.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

The scriptures plainly say that His body is the church.

You have to believe what is written.

I do and I know that because that was my point in post #79. I was making that point in response to what you had said in post #75 about Jesus being the Church. My point can be seen in post #79.

Hell is where spirits of many people go.

Jesus is the Church.

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.

Ephesians 1:22 And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of His body.

Paul is explaining that his own suffering benefits the church.

Hmmmm....one person's suffering can have benefits for others. Even though Jesus took care of it all through His life, passion, death, and resurrection.

He still lets Paul's (and by extension, our) sufferings benefit others.

Probably could even pray for others, too, I suppose. Like Paul says in Romans 1:9, Romans 15:30, 2 Corinthians 13:7,Colossians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:25...shoot it is all over the place in Paul's writings.

Yeah. I like that. Christians helping others through their suffering and prayers. I like that.

Tell me...how is that NOT mediating for others?

I mean, Jesus is the One mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6) and yet all Christians are told to pray for one another all over the place in the New Testament. Jesus even says we are to pray for our enemies!!

And Paul shows us that suffering can benefit others, too.

Isn't that participating in the One mediatorship of Jesus Christ as mini-mediators? Isn't sharing the Gospel with someone sharing in His mediatorship as well?

Just curious what you think about that because it sure looks like sharing in His mediating to me.

And nothing was really lacking in Christ's afflictions then, correct? Paul said that, but He didn't really mean something was lacking, right?

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

I didn't blame God. I asked a question.

So according to that thinking....if Christians do not agree, all we can know for sure is that somebody (or everybody) is lacking in obedience.

But as far as what the Truth is....we cannot know that for sure.

Why do you keep saying that?

We CAN know for sure. Jesus says that we can.

Two things. First, you have repeatedly stated that Catholics do not obey God...but you haven't yet shown that. Pick one topic if you would like to discuss something.

Let's start from the top, your pope.

Second, no. I only give that special ticket to Jesus Christ. And He said He would build HIS Church in the 1st century, and He promised that He would be with it always, and deception and lies would not prevail against it.

Jesus is the church and we are in that church.
Jesus said he would build his church ON THE TRUTH.

Since He is God, I believe Him and I believe He is powerful enough to protect His Church from teaching error.

You cannot get out of your responsibility.
We are told what to do and to be careful.

People can teach false doctrines. But Jesus' Church cannot. Because it is Jesus' Church. He protects it. I trust Him and I trust that He can do that, being God and all.

Again, Jesus tells US TO be careful, and he does it for a reason.

God (Jesus) says that He would always be with His Church and if false doctrines are taught by His Church then He failed and the gates of hell prevailed.

I already explained that you do not understand that right.

No church building was in hell where the gates of Hell did not prevail.

Do you think it is possible that it is the other way around? That you said what men taught you and not what God says? Is that a possibility?

I have a powerful testimony. You will have to trust Jesus' word as he says to, and obey what he says, then he will reveal things to you.

 

[God's Truth]

What are the teachings to be obeyed?

Which teachings?

You don't know what Jesus teaches?

Well, you might. But your earlier post certainly didn't show that. Just one example, you stated that we are to worship God alone implying that Catholics do not do that. But the Catholic Church has always emphatically declared that humans are only ever to worship the One, True, God.

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

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

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

Your "pope" is only a man.

You know, phrasing it like that has quite a sharp edge to it. Makes me cringe a little bit. Sounds a bit triumphalistic and condescending. Just saying.

Here's your proof then. I think it was in post #34:

Unless you actually cite a reference and version, that is a paraphrase. You didn't cite any references to these paraphrases. Even though you said you did.

book, chapter, verse, and translation here will clear up a lot for me. Thanks.

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

I disagree. You will have to prove that claim. Just stating it doesn't make it true.

Again, take worship only God. Well, the Catholic Church has proclaimed that for 2000 years. If you believe that it teaches something different....like to worship something or somebody else....well, you'll have to prove that.

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

All of these are completely biblical and I can prove it.

But I will not until you select one at a time.

Dang. I'm having such a hard time being concise.

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

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

The false teachers will be judged more harshly for a reason.

As for us now, you have no excuse.

Did you know that as late as 1950 the illiteracy rate in the world was about 50%? That is an awful lot of people who may not be able to read a Bible. How are they to live as Christians if they want to?

When I was growing up, I had an older father who was taught that you do not read the Bible without a priest or nun to explain it to you.

That could be a bad thing. Or it could be a good thing. 2 Peter 3:16 warns about people using Scripture and twisting it to their own destruction because they have not been trained in how to read the Scriptures.

We see in the Bible that the Ethiopian eunuch had a similar problem:

"So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him." (Acts 8:30-31)

Just imagine how, when I at the age of about 11 would take the family Bible to my room to read. The look of horror on my mom's face and not wanting my dad to find out.

That is sad depending on the intent. But really says nothing about what the Church teaches. That may have been a local idea and not part of the universal Church especially with the confusion that came after Vatican II.

It even said in the Catholic Bible to not read without a priest or nun.

I've never in my life seen that....because it is not there. Was it there in the past somewhere in the world of Catholicism? Perhaps.

If the intent was to help with understanding, like the Ethiopian eunuch needed (who happened to be wealthy and reading the Scriptures in the original language)..that would be a good intent.

Many do not have any excuse.

Agreed. To whom much has been given...much will be expected.

The Catholic church is not supposed to change.

Says who? Please explain.

That is about individual people.

No it isn't. It is about the growth of the Church from a small, little mustard seed type into a tree/bush that can be homes for birds of the air. Jesus says "the Kingdom of Heaven" is like the mustard seed. That references His Church...not individual people. He is explaining how His Church will grow.

Don't you read what I post? I already explained with scripture that the letters and books that they shared were and are the scriptures.

Of course I read what you post. You said they had a New Testament in the first century. The simple fact is that they didn't and that is not a Catholic idea, Protestants acknowledge that as well.

They had some letters and books at certain times during the 1st century (you have shown that) but they didn't have a New Testament as we know it. The books and letters were written over many decades (at least 30 years) and there were many others that people were reading too.

Officially? hahahaha

Many think the Catholics determined what books were to be included in the Bible, because they over the centuries publicly listed the books that they used. There were canons put together and used by people even before the Catholics. Different people gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.

What do you mean..."used from the beginning"? What was used in 43 A.D., for example? 10 years after Christ's death.

I am afraid you are quite mistaken. The canon of the New Testament entailed quite a little debate before decided upon.

The Catholic denominations started to introduce heresies in approximately 310 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church, which taught things contrary to the Bible, began with the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. The Catholics continued to bring in many false teachings.
Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning.

What year was "right from the beginning?"

The New Testament teachings were by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.

Agreed. But many of the books of Scripture weren't even written yet so you cannot claim that they had a New Testament right from the beginning unless you mean like 70 A.D. or something beyond that.

Again, the believers from the beginning used these books and letters from the start. That is what determined these books as scripture.

Define "the beginning" please. What year?

And why didn't they include other books that were used from "the beginning" as well? Like the Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the letters of Clement, and others.

And yes, that is what helped to determine those books as scripture...but that final determination didn't really happen until about 382 at the Council of Rome.

The Catholics teach that the priest is a tool to turn the bread and wine into the real blood and flesh of Jesus.

That would be an interesting topic if we decide to do that.

You do not break bread as the people in the New Testament do.

Do you? Please explain how you do. Thanks.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

Hmmmm....one person's suffering can have benefits for others. Even though Jesus took care of it all through His life, passion, death, and resurrection.

He still lets Paul's (and by extension, our) sufferings benefit others.

Probably could even pray for others, too, I suppose. Like Paul says in Romans 1:9, Romans 15:30, 2 Corinthians 13:7,Colossians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:25...shoot it is all over the place in Paul's writings.

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

Paul was one who helped lay the foundation.

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

Yeah. I like that. Christians helping others through their suffering and prayers. I like that.

Tell me...how is that NOT mediating for others?

There is only one mediator.

I mean, Jesus is the One mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6) and yet all Christians are told to pray for one another all over the place in the New Testament. Jesus even says we are to pray for our enemies!!

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

 

[God's Truth]

Did you know that as late as 1950 the illiteracy rate in the world was about 50%? That is an awful lot of people who may not be able to read a Bible. How are they to live as Christians if they want to?

That is not your problem with you.

That could be a bad thing. Or it could be a good thing. 2 Peter 3:16 warns about people using Scripture and twisting it to their own destruction because they have not been trained in how to read the Scriptures.

We see in the Bible that the Ethiopian eunuch had a similar problem:

"So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him." (Acts 8:30-31)

hahahahaha

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

That is sad depending on the intent. But really says nothing about what the Church teaches. That may have been a local idea and not part of the universal Church especially with the confusion that came after Vatican II.

You are confused about the Catholic church, for it was NOT a local idea to not read the Bible without a priest or a nun around to explain. That was a universal teaching. As for you saying confusion came after the Vatican II---I am speaking about before Vatican II. I told you that I had an older father. Those who believe in the teachings before Vatican II are called Traditional Catholics. The Catholics were told the popes were infallible. The Catholic popes said anyone outside the Catholic church would go to hell. John Paul had that changed at the time of the Vatican II...so much for infallible popes. John Paul changed that for ecumenical reasons. What he did was prove the "popes" were nonsense teachers.

I've never in my life seen that....because it is not there. Was it there in the past somewhere in the world of Catholicism? Perhaps.

So much for infallible popes.

No it isn't. It is about the growth of the Church from a small, little mustard seed type into a tree/bush that can be homes for birds of the air. Jesus says "the Kingdom of Heaven" is like the mustard seed. That references His Church...not individual people. He is explaining how His Church will grow.

It is about individuals.

Of course I read what you post. You said they had a New Testament in the first century. The simple fact is that they didn't and that is not a Catholic idea, Protestants acknowledge that as well.

I am not a protestant.

They had some letters and books at certain times during the 1st century (you have shown that) but they didn't have a New Testament as we know it.

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

You have not proven anything.

What do you mean..."used from the beginning"? What was used in 43 A.D., for example? 10 years after Christ's death.

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

Agreed. But many of the books of Scripture weren't even written yet so you cannot claim that they had a New Testament right from the beginning unless you mean like 70 A.D. or something beyond that.

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

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Why do you keep saying that?

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

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

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

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

We CAN know for sure. Jesus says that we can.

Not according to your logic we can't. Every person can have a different understanding of God's Word and every person can say theirs is correct because of their obedience and all we would know for sure is that everybody isn't correct. And maybe nobody is correct.

According to your belief system...or according to your group/denomination...what is the foundation of the Truth? Is it obedience?

Let's start from the top, your pope.

Ok. What about him?

Jesus is the church and we are in that church.

Ok, I guess but Scripture doesn't put it that way that I know of. Jesus is the Head of the Church and we are the Body. (Colossians 1:18)

But we aren't all in His Church to the same degree. Because, although we all share some beliefs, we do not share all beliefs. But that isn't the way it is in Jesus' Church. Jesus is not confused about whether or not we should baptize babies, for example. He knows. And His Church knows. Because they have been doing that since the first century.

Most churches today cannot say that because, historically, they didn't even exist in the first century.

Jesus said he would build his church ON THE TRUTH.

I am sure that you know your Bible better than I do...where does He say that again? I don't recall.

You cannot get out of your responsibility.
We are told what to do and to be careful.

You have lost me. I do not know what you are talking about here. Maybe because I am tired and it is late.

Again, Jesus tells US TO be careful, and he does it for a reason.

Where again? I would like some context please.

I already explained that you do not understand that right.

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

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

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

I thought that I was just as free as you are to read the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be saying that I am...as long as I agree with your interpretation.

No church building was in hell where the gates of Hell did not prevail.

I wasn't talking about a church building and neither was Jesus. He was talking about His Church, His body.

I have a powerful testimony. You will have to trust Jesus' word as he says to, and obey what he says, then he will reveal things to you.

I try to.

That is why I trust that He built His Church, that He will always be with it, and that it cannot teach error.

Because He is in charge of it.

Peace.