Author Topic: Why I am Catholic  (Read 36973 times)

0 Members and 199 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5739
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #100 on: September 26, 2012, 12:14:59 PM »
The Thread to Nowhere.

Somebody call Sarah Palin. We need some common sense.

Oh, I don't agree with that.  I find it fascinating reading. I'm not expecting a definitive conclusion--it's faith after all.  

Yeah, I am learning stuff. Had no idea that the original Greek there said something more like "summon"
We don't have to reach an agreement to understand each others viewpoints or to learn new things. Nor would I be surprised if CatholicCrusader's own faith and beliefs are strengthened by the discussion. 
  

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2012, 03:32:51 AM »
"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
Quote

There is a great deal of confusion in your interpretation.  Peter is not given the keys to the kingdom. EVERYONE is. We can ALL enter, if we WILL, as can be demonstrated by MANY scriptures, such as John 3:16.  But, let's look carefully at the scripture and see if we can prove from it Apostolic authority or whether you can prove Papal authority.  
Notice, that Jesus calls him Simon, son of Jonah, his given name and "bar" was the equivalent of "son of"  so, Jesus spoke to Simon, son of Jona in responding to his confession of Jesus as the Son of God. (That part was clipped from your quote, but it is integral to the story being told there.) In fact, lets look at the whole scripture:
Matthew 16:13-20
King James Version (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus makes clear that relationships are important, with his calling his disciple Simon BarJona, but notice later he does not call him Simon, he calls him Peter, which is a SPECIFIC Greek word for Rock. Then further still he says upon THIS rock i will build my church....except it is NOT the same Rock!  The word there is PETRA!  The equivalent in our language might be to use the word play to say, Simon Smith, I am going to call you Rocky, and upon this STONE I will build my church!  It quickly becomes clear to anyone that he does not say on Peter he will build his church, but upon the CONFESSION! There are other scriptures that make the confession of Jesus as the Son of God an integral part of not only our faith, but part of the plan of salvation.  And it is a continual confession, not a singular event, but the important thing to notice here is he quite specifically uses a different word for rock. There is no doubt that Peter did not build the church, Christ did. Jesus is the foundation, the cornerstone, not Peter.  Absolutely, Peter was an Apostle, a witness of Christ. Absolutely, Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. And, absolutely, the Apostles were given authority to teach what they had been taught by Jesus and called to remembrance by the Holy Spirit. But, Peter was not made pope here. There is no record of that, here or elsewhere.
See Ephesians 2:20 because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.
(studying about the cornerstone is helpful, but the short version is, that it was the main stone of the foundation from which everything else was built. if it was not right, nothing else could be.)
Rev. 21:14 (NET)
21:14 The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Finally, to warn against trying to build on the foundation of Peter (Cephas) rather than Christ, heed the words of Paul:
1st Corinthians 3And each one must be careful how he builds. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 12  3:13 each builder’s 13  work will be plainly seen, for the Day 14  will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire 15  will test what kind of work each has done. 3:14 If what someone has built survives, he will receive a reward. 3:15 If someone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss. 16  He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

3:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple 17  and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 3:17 If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are.

3:18 Guard against self-deception, each of you. 18  If someone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become foolish so that he can become wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this age is foolishness with God. As it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness.” 19  3:20 And again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 20  3:21 So then, no more boasting about mere mortals! 21  For everything belongs to you, 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. Everything belongs to you, 3:23 and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 03:53:20 AM by ChrstnHsbndFthr »
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #102 on: September 27, 2012, 03:58:36 AM »
Your appeal to Isaiah 22 for papal authority was interesting. I suggest you read all the way to verse 25, before you decide to hang the pope's hat on that peg. 
"20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #103 on: September 27, 2012, 04:11:15 AM »
The Thread to Nowhere.

Somebody call Sarah Palin. We need some common sense.

Oh, I don't agree with that.  I find it fascinating reading. I'm not expecting a definitive conclusion--it's faith after all.  

Yeah, I am learning stuff. Had no idea that the original Greek there said something more like "summon"
We don't have to reach an agreement to understand each others viewpoints or to learn new things. Nor would I be surprised if CatholicCrusader's own faith and beliefs are strengthened by the discussion. 
  

Proverbs 27:17
New International Version (NIV)
17 As iron sharpens iron,
    so one person sharpens another.

 It is entirely possible that no minds are changed but that all grow from the discussion. We gain greater understanding of one another, find common ground on some issues, sharpen our understanding of even our own position, and increase our faith through knowledge.
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10856
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2012, 08:47:44 AM »
My comment is my own, and I stand by it. I don't suggest that nothing can be learned. I only suggest that I personally have been witness to discussions like this one over the "true" Christian sect many times before, and they go nowhere.

By all means, carry on. We don't have enough of people beating their heads against the wall around here.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline LadyVirginia

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5168
  • Mt. Vernon painting by Francis Jukes
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #105 on: September 27, 2012, 08:54:15 AM »
My comment is my own, and I stand by it. I don't suggest that nothing can be learned. I only suggest that I personally have been witness to discussions like this one over the "true" Christian sect many times before, and they go nowhere.

By all means, carry on. We don't have enough of people beating their heads against the wall around here.

It occurred to me yesterday, IDP, that I have had the same sort of discussions regarding political topics (economics, rights, etc) with family and friends.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

CatholicCrusader

  • Guest
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #106 on: September 27, 2012, 09:33:25 AM »
I can tell you one thing wrong with a thread like this: It tries to encompass too many different subjects.

This is not a religion forum, its more of a political forum with a religion section. Some of the subjects raised desrve their own thread in a more dedicated religion forum.

CatholicCrusader

  • Guest
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #107 on: September 27, 2012, 09:34:56 AM »
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Jives with my understanding of the "basics"!   ::thumbsup::

As I said in another post: My response to this will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html

CatholicCrusader

  • Guest
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #108 on: September 27, 2012, 09:38:43 AM »
.....Were indulgences nothing other than the granting of petitions, paid for or not?.......

Try these:
1. Primer on Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
2. Myths About Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences

CatholicCrusader

  • Guest
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #109 on: September 27, 2012, 09:45:27 AM »
Your appeal to Isaiah 22 for papal authority was interesting. I suggest you read all the way to verse 25, before you decide to hang the pope's hat on that peg. 
"20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it."

I assume you understand what "typology" is? A "type" is an Old Testament forshadowing of something more perfect to come in the New Testament. As St. Augustine said, in the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed.

But the thing about OT types is that they are not perfect. For example. Moses is an OT "type" of Jesus.

An evil king/Pharaoh tried to kill him as a baby: Exodus 1:22 - King Herod tried to kill baby Jesus: Matthew 2:16
Moses was sent into Egypt to preserve his life: Exodus 2:3-4 - Jesus was taken into Egypt to preserve His life: Matthew 2:13-15
Moses' mission was to redeem Israel from slavery to Egypt - Jesus' mission is to redeem mankind from slavery to sin
Moses will give God's law on the mountain of Sinai: Exodus 20:1-31:18; 34:1-35 - Jesus will give the new law from the Mt. of Beatitudes: Matthew chapter 5

I can give many more, but you guys get the ideal.

But, was Moses all that Jesus was? Of course not. Likewise, the typology in Isaiah is not perfect either. Its a forshadowing.

Typology - Dr. Scott Hahn

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5739
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #110 on: September 27, 2012, 10:23:07 AM »
.....Were indulgences nothing other than the granting of petitions, paid for or not?.......

Try these:
1. Primer on Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
2. Myths About Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences

From the first link:
Quote
This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

This directly contradicts Christ's admonishment to "summon" no Man to intercede for you, does it not? If not, why not? If we take the references at face value, Scripture granted the apostles the ability to absolve Sin, but it does not follow that ability was passed on via Apostolic Succession, nor that any church member could grant such. So even if we grant that Apostolic Succession allows certain members of the church to forgive sins, this article makes it clear indulgences are to remove  penalties or punishments - and that a sin forgiven may leave these behind. I do not see a verse giving the apostles the power to remove such punishments. Nor do I agree with the position on "Binding and Loosing"

Quote
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

Christ does not say : go give them some community service to do. He says excommunicate them, and I will back you up on that decision.

And then in the second link, there is so much blatant whitewashing of the actual history, whoever wrote it should be ashamed

Quote
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."

I assure you that during the most corrupt periods of the church, one could buy indulgences (or bribe a priest to provide them if you prefer that term) even in advance of the sin committed.  

"As soon as the gold in the casket rings; the rescued soul to heaven springs" - John Tetzel. St. Peter's Basilica was paid for in part with the use of such funds.  This is historical fact.  Calling it a "Myth" in no way changes the fact that these things happened, and happened with the full knowledge and approval of the higher orders of the church, including the Council of Trent in 1562 - 50 Years after Martin Luther pointed out the practice was wrong in 1517 and he had been excommunicated for doing  so. . Its was quite obvious that the abuse of indulgences was a sin, and yet it took centuries  for anyone in the church hierarchy to notice- even after Martin Luther pointed it out? Pius V  decreed commercial sale to be wrong in 1567, which is also after Luther I might add.  

If you want to say "this is what the church believes and teaches today" that is all well and good, but pretending it always was so is a complete lie.  The church has a long history - and during it it has done good and it has encouraged evil.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 67914
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #111 on: September 27, 2012, 11:41:27 AM »
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Jives with my understanding of the "basics"!   ::thumbsup::

As I said in another post: My response to this will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html


A) I don't get it.  Change the word from "call" to "summon", how does that materially change the meaning?  It in fact makes it even more confusing.

B) Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be.

C) Are there other opinions on this?  If so, what are they?
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #112 on: September 27, 2012, 12:12:41 PM »
Clearly, I understand types and figures. But, this scripture, that YOU brought up, is not a type or figure. It is a prophecy.  Isaiah prophecies exactly what would happen. And it did.  I am also aware that prophecy is often fulfilled on multiple levels. The simple question is whether you think that this was also a prophecy about Peter or not? I suppose one could claim that Peter's peg was pulled out when he was martyred. How does that justify men replacing that peg with another?  Even if you make the huge assumption that Peter was appointed to the office of Pope, without ever mentioning that such an office existed, that would have been direct appointment by Christ.  Where is the scriptural justification for the different way Catholics appoints popes now?

There may be some confusion on the part of others here. I do NOT advocate for sects. Not mine nor anyone else's. I advocate for serving Christ as instructed from scripture. I do not believe that Jesus intended for his people to be divided into denominations, no matter whether they are called Holy Roman Catholic, or Methodist, or Lutheran, Or Wesleyan, or Baptist, or an almost infinite number of other divisions. We are called to serve Him. We are to have no other Gods before him. A man cannot serve two masters. If one is serving a denomination it reduces his ability, in my opinion, to serve Christ. As we study we find things that differ between ANY denomination and the scripture.  I understand that most people who think they are following Christ are doing it in a denomination and I have no doubt they do so in good conscience, thinking they are serving Christ. But, his word teaches us that Christ is not divided. We were not intended to separate ourselves from each other over stuff that matters little or perhaps not at all.

For example, I believe many things abut Baptism. Salvation. Washing. Burial. Joining Christ's death. Resurrection. Etc...... and yet, I would not divide myself from someone who says he was only baptized only because Christ told him to be. he may have incomplete understanding of serious issues, but he is trying to serve Christ. The discussion of how much error is acceptable is an interesting one. But, in truth it belongs to Christ to answer that at judgment. We need to continue to try to return to being the church that Christ built.  I do not seek to be Catholic or Protestant, but merely Christian, in the way the first century church was, long before either denomination or sect came into being.
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10856
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #113 on: September 27, 2012, 03:24:30 PM »
...Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be...

Bingo.

The dead end starts and ends right there. Intellectual parsing of doctrine always boils down to faith in the end. And from that point forward, the discussion becomes competing self-affirming logic loops that rely on ones own faith assumptions as ones proof. Whether it is individuals or institutions, relying on ones own unprovable assertions as proof of the correctness of ones own faith and the incorrectness of anothers is just mental masturbation.

Too much mental masturbation leads to people telling you to go screw yourself. Not saying that I am thinking anyone here should do so, but I am highlighting why it is that in my opinion - in the end - conversations like this are never as productive as they are destructive.

People's deep faith cannot be shaken by competing faith - especially when the faiths really ought not compete, because they more accurately dovetail with perfection if one looks at others through the eyes of Christ instead of the judgmental eyes of men. The assumption in conversations like this is that somehow by explaining it "right", you will be convincing, or "win". The assumption is laughable. When it comes down to people claiming that their doctrine and traditions are the only correct way, somehow I know it in my heart that Jesus Christ is saddened.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 67914
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #114 on: September 27, 2012, 09:28:55 PM »
...Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be...

Bingo.

The dead end starts and ends right there. Intellectual parsing of doctrine always boils down to faith in the end. And from that point forward, the discussion becomes competing self-affirming logic loops that rely on ones own faith assumptions as ones proof. Whether it is individuals or institutions, relying on ones own unprovable assertions as proof of the correctness of ones own faith and the incorrectness of anothers is just mental masturbation.

Too much mental masturbation leads to people telling you to go screw yourself. Not saying that I am thinking anyone here should do so, but I am highlighting why it is that in my opinion - in the end - conversations like this are never as productive as they are destructive.

People's deep faith cannot be shaken by competing faith - especially when the faiths really ought not compete, because they more accurately dovetail with perfection if one looks at others through the eyes of Christ instead of the judgmental eyes of men. The assumption in conversations like this is that somehow by explaining it "right", you will be convincing, or "win". The assumption is laughable. When it comes down to people claiming that their doctrine and traditions are the only correct way, somehow I know it in my heart that Jesus Christ is saddened.



Agreed, and it is why I focus on the basics, after all it is the only thing that really matters.  Jesus saves.  Amen.
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10856
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #115 on: September 27, 2012, 10:31:52 PM »
From Luke 23....

Quote
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Was the criminal hanging beside Jesus on the cross who repented at the moment of his death - whose faith Jesus acknowledged earned him a place alongside Christ in heaven - was that man a Catholic? An Evangelical? A Methodist? A Lutheran?

No, he wasn't even a Christian. He repented for his sins, and acknowledged the Lordship and forgiving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It was not required of him to pass any sectarian litmus tests. He only needed to offer himself to Jesus with a willing heart. Even after a life of crime, an intimate moment of the heart between man and God in the final moment of a wasted life was all that was required by Jesus.

Since the founding of the Catholic Church until this day, people of ALL Christian sects have been attaching requirements onto the relationship between God and men; between Jesus and His Church. It is the nature of men to do so. We are tribal, clannish beings, ever seeking ways to separate ourselves from those who are not "of" us, and create rules of distinction that justify our behaviors and traditions, and by default, invalidate the behaviors and traditions of those not like us.

ALL such requirements are the requirements of men. God hates that. It rips His church apart. His TRUE Church.

Prove me wrong.



"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #116 on: September 27, 2012, 11:31:41 PM »
The answer is simple enough. The thief, just as Jesus himself, lived and died under the old law. The blood of Christ washed forward AND backward.  The thief was saved not by his own works, but by the blood of Christ, not because he was a Christian, but because God was making the sacrifice that would save us ALL all the way back to Adam and all the way forward to judgment day.
This is merely a mental exercise anyway. (speaking of mental masturbation) It has absolutely no impact today, no matter which of the reasoned ways one decides on believing. If Jesus spoke the judgment in his authority as God, the thief was saved. Does this give us authority to ignore his instructions to us, or does it give us reason to obey Him? (Obviously, I think it gives us reason to try to obey as best we can, which begins in belief and continues on through repentance, into obedience.)
If the thief obeyed Christ as best he could from the moment he believed, and his faith saved him, should we not do the same, even if we have greater opportunity for obedience than he did?
If the thief was saved because of the pure grace of God, even when helpless to obey, should we not also seek that grace? 
The thief has no impact today, that I can see, except to glorify God in the same way countless other heroes of the bible did through their recorded experiences.
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10856
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #117 on: September 27, 2012, 11:38:09 PM »
The answer is simple enough. The thief, just as Jesus himself, lived and died under the old law. The blood of Christ washed forward AND backward.  The thief was saved not by his own works, but by the blood of Christ, not because he was a Christian, but because God was making the sacrifice that would save us ALL all the way back to Adam and all the way forward to judgment day.
This is merely a mental exercise anyway. (speaking of mental masturbation) It has absolutely no impact today, no matter which of the reasoned ways one decides on believing. If Jesus spoke the judgment in his authority as God, the thief was saved. Does this give us authority to ignore his instructions to us, or does it give us reason to obey Him? (Obviously, I think it gives us reason to try to obey as best we can, which begins in belief and continues on through repentance, into obedience.)
If the thief obeyed Christ as best he could from the moment he believed, and his faith saved him, should we not do the same, even if we have greater opportunity for obedience than he did?
If the thief was saved because of the pure grace of God, even when helpless to obey, should we not also seek that grace?  
The thief has no impact today, that I can see, except to glorify God in the same way countless other heroes of the bible did through their recorded experiences.

So you say.

I don't discount it because you say it. I just note that it is you - not God - making an assertion based on a series of extrapolations.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #118 on: September 27, 2012, 11:48:51 PM »
The Lordship belongs to Christ. Not men.  I have mostly appealed to scripture, and there IS a scriptural basis for my thoughts on this, but it is late and difficult to go through point by point, so I will try a more simple approach.

Jesus is Lord. Final judgment belongs to him.  Our love for him, beginning with acknowledgement of him, means we try our best to serve him, and then trust him to do the rest. I do not believe I can ever be perfect before him, except by his blood.  Yet, my love for him means I should strive for perfection at least in my obedience to him from here forward. The desire to walk with God is innate in me, but the knowledge of everything he desires is not. It requires study. However, there IS a promise that if we SEEK we WILL find. This does not mean I attain perfection for every day I learn more than the previous day. It also prevents me from being judgmental toward others. I think there is only one path, but we may be at different places along it.  I see no harm coming from encouraging others, as I am encouraged myself, to STUDY.  How can I obey God if I do not look for his will?
Perhaps I meet a fellow who does not know Christ, but does believe there is a God. Do I discourage him, or should we all be encouraging him, from the point where he is on the path?  Is that not the first stepping stone? I am far more interested in direction, which is easily achieved and maintained, than I am in perfection, which is unattainable, except by being covered in the blood of Christ.  So, my goal is to move forward everyday and to cheer on my fellow travelers in this strange land.  Seeking first his kingdom and its righteousness seems like a good starting place, and is one main reason to reject the little divided kingdoms that men have tried to set up within the Lord's church.
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
Re: Why I am Catholic
« Reply #119 on: September 27, 2012, 11:58:50 PM »
Very early on in this discussion we determined when the church began. Clearly the thief was a Jew, and the church had not started yet. This clearly answers how he could be saved, even if being crucified as a thief. (Was that the part you dispute?) Or perhaps it is the fact that Jesus's blood washes forward and backward?
Or is it the assertion that we are promised salvation IF we do certain things, that the thief was apparently not required to do?  We know God keeps his promises. He has the right of the Supreme Authority to do even better than he promised, but it strikes me as a foolish position to stand before him on judgment day saying I know what you promised, I just want a better deal. No, we have promises that we can trust, which is why I assert that the thief does not matter to us today, except to glorify God. He is not an example whereby we attain salvation since that method is not promised to us.

(I was unclear on your objection, so I answered as best I could. If you can clarify any objection I might have missed, I can try again.)


The answer is simple enough. The thief, just as Jesus himself, lived and died under the old law. The blood of Christ washed forward AND backward.  The thief was saved not by his own works, but by the blood of Christ, not because he was a Christian, but because God was making the sacrifice that would save us ALL all the way back to Adam and all the way forward to judgment day.
This is merely a mental exercise anyway. (speaking of mental masturbation) It has absolutely no impact today, no matter which of the reasoned ways one decides on believing. If Jesus spoke the judgment in his authority as God, the thief was saved. Does this give us authority to ignore his instructions to us, or does it give us reason to obey Him? (Obviously, I think it gives us reason to try to obey as best we can, which begins in belief and continues on through repentance, into obedience.)
If the thief obeyed Christ as best he could from the moment he believed, and his faith saved him, should we not do the same, even if we have greater opportunity for obedience than he did?
If the thief was saved because of the pure grace of God, even when helpless to obey, should we not also seek that grace?  
The thief has no impact today, that I can see, except to glorify God in the same way countless other heroes of the bible did through their recorded experiences.

So you say.

I don't discount it because you say it. I just note that it is you - not God - making an assertion based on a series of extrapolations.

“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ