NOT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURES.

Bonnie

Super Member
Which is why as a Roman Catholic I do not make the argument that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Scriptures.

I believe that all Christian Truth is contained either implicitly or explicitly in the Scriptures. I believe that the Scriptures are the supreme authority in the Church.

My position is different from the Protestant in three ways:

1) That ONLY the Scriptures are infallible. I believe ONLY the Scriptures are God Breathed, but not ONLY Scripture is infallible. The Protestant in my mind jumps to conclusions when the Protestant tries to argue that because only the Scriptures are God Breathed it means only the Scriptures are infallible. Show from Scripture where Scripture teaches that ONLY that which is God Breathed is infallible.

2) Scripture is the supreme manifestation of God's authority in the Church but not the sole locus of God's authority in the Church. Lesser manifestations of God's authority are in Church councils and when the Church defines doctrine and Tradition. Here also, the Protestant jumps to conclusions. The Protestant seems to jump from "Only Scripture is God Breathed" to "Therefore ONLY Scripture speaks with God's authority or is the locus of God's authority

3) Catholics do not believe that the certainty of the Christian Faith is derived from the Scriptures alone. Catholics believe that Tradition is also another mechanism by which the one and the same Gospel handed on in the Scriptures is preserved. Tradition is infallible, but not God Breathed. The authority of the Church is infallible, but not God Breathed.
Everything we need to know for salvation is in the Bible. Many of the Catholic doctrines we Protestants disagree with were not made official for often hundreds of years after the furst century--howEVER were people in the church saved before that happened? However did they survive without them?

:rolleyes:
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Everything we need to know for salvation is in the Bible. Many of the Catholic doctrines we Protestants disagree with were not made official for often hundreds of years after the first century
So? What does that have to do with anything?
--howEVER were people in the church saved before that happened?
Yes.
However did they survive without them?

:rolleyes:
The same way people survived for hundreds of years without knowing the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, modern medicine, etc.

What is essential for salvation is Jesus Christ--and--having a knowledge of Jesus Christ--a relationship with Jesus in some form.

Perfect knowledge of and profession of Christian doctrine is not essential to salvation. Catholics have never claimed that the Church possessed a perfect grasp of revealed Truth from day one, nor have Catholics ever maintained that the Church knew everything there was to know about revealed Truth from day one.

When you read statements like "As the Church has always believed..." they should be understood in a poetic sense. Because the Church of the first century is the same Church that exists in 2022--as the Catholic Church, it follows that the Church always believed it, even if it was not made explicit until hundreds of years later.

I mean---the doctrine of Faith alone was not fully and explicitly articulated until Luther--that is 1500 years after Christ--yet you aren't bothered by that. Same with Sola Scriptura. The fact that it was not until 1500 that Luther fully and explicitly articulated the doctrine of Faith alone and Bible only, you would not assert that it follows the doctrines were invented. Lutherans believe these doctrines were believed by the early Church, even if they didn't explicitly articulate them.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Which is why as a Roman Catholic I do not make the argument that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Scriptures.

I believe that all Christian Truth is contained either implicitly or explicitly in the Scriptures. I believe that the Scriptures are the supreme authority in the Church.

My position is different from the Protestant in three ways:

1) That ONLY the Scriptures are infallible. I believe ONLY the Scriptures are God Breathed, but not ONLY Scripture is infallible. The Protestant in my mind jumps to conclusions when the Protestant tries to argue that because only the Scriptures are God Breathed it means only the Scriptures are infallible. Show from Scripture where Scripture teaches that ONLY that which is God Breathed is infallible.

2) Scripture is the supreme manifestation of God's authority in the Church but not the sole locus of God's authority in the Church. Lesser manifestations of God's authority are in Church councils and when the Church defines doctrine and Tradition. Here also, the Protestant jumps to conclusions. The Protestant seems to jump from "Only Scripture is God Breathed" to "Therefore ONLY Scripture speaks with God's authority or is the locus of God's authority

3) Catholics do not believe that the certainty of the Christian Faith is derived from the Scriptures alone. Catholics believe that Tradition is also another mechanism by which the one and the same Gospel handed on in the Scriptures is preserved. Tradition is infallible, but not God Breathed. The authority of the Church is infallible, but not God Breathed.
Then why can RC beliefs not be proved by using scripture. Which apostle prayed to Mary after she died? Yet you are the one who has devalued the scriptures by saying they are not the original writings. Clearly giving the impression that what we have is not the word of God because they are not the originals.

Of course the word of God is superior to your bad tree, which twists the meanings of words, adds to scripture, goes beyond scripture and take away/ignore the scriptures.

What RCs believe is why it has the evil leaders it has now. Leaders who ignore sin and do not expose and allow the flock to be harmed are not good shepherds and they fail the requirements for leaders set out in scripture.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Tradition is infallible, but not God Breathed. The authority of the Church is infallible, but not God Breathed.
So essentially nothing more than the corporate "wisdom" of the Magisterium, which changes it's "Infallible opinions" with the phase of the moon.

Infallibility is TOTALLY REJECTED. Obviously nothing but another Catholic pipe dream.

Protestants don't CLAIM phony "Infallibility"!!! We're REALISTS and we KNOW WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
So? What does that have to do with anything?

Plenty. You just seem reluctant to admit it.
Yes.

The same way people survived for hundreds of years without knowing the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, modern medicine, etc.

Knowing the Theory of Relativity, et. al. that you mention is not necessary for salvation to eternal life in Jesus Christ.
What is essential for salvation is Jesus Christ--and--having a knowledge of Jesus Christ--a relationship with Jesus in some form.

I agree, though not sure what you mean by "some form." We either believe in Jesus Christ and have our sins forgiven and become new creations in Him, or we don't.
Perfect knowledge of and profession of Christian doctrine is not essential to salvation. Catholics have never claimed that the Church possessed a perfect grasp of revealed Truth from day one, nor have Catholics ever maintained that the Church knew everything there was to know about revealed Truth from day one.

Let me ask you this: Could a Catholic deny Mary's PV and IC, believing her to be a sinner like everyone else and in need of salvation, who had children with her lawful husband, Joseph, after Jesus' birth--and still remain a Catholic in good standing, who would be allowed to participate in the Mass and communion?
When you read statements like "As the Church has always believed..." they should be understood in a poetic sense.

Nonsense. The church has NOT always believed in Marian dogmas, nor believed in a celibate, unmarried priesthood, purgatory, etc. No poetry about it.
Because the Church of the first century is the same Church that exists in 2022--as the Catholic Church, it follows that the Church always believed it, even if it was not made explicit until hundreds of years later.

This is complete poppycock. The church did NOT always believe in Mary's IC, PV, Assumption into heaven; Purgatory, praying to dead saints; celibate unmarried priesthoods--the list goes on.
I mean---the doctrine of Faith alone was not fully and explicitly articulated until Luther--that is 1500 years after Christ--yet you aren't bothered by that.

Sure it is--right in Eph. 2:8-9. If we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord--what is there left to be saved by?
Same with Sola Scriptura. The fact that it was not until 1500 that Luther fully and explicitly articulated the doctrine of Faith alone and Bible only,

Pfffttt! All throughout the Bible God warns against adding or subtracting from His words and through Paul, said "do not go beyond what is written." But the RCC has done that in spades, for hundreds of years, "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." And thus, in vain worshiping God.
you would not assert that it follows the doctrines were invented. Lutherans believe these doctrines were believed by the early Church, even if they didn't explicitly articulate them.
But they are articulated in the Bible. All throughout the NT we are told that Jesus saves us "NOT on account of works which we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy." Grace through faith and NOT by works, and that is NOT of ourselves, but the GIFT OF GOD. "By grace you are saved; through faith--and that is NOT of yourselves; it is the GIFT OF GOD--and not by works, so no one may boast." So, if we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus and NOT by works--what else is there left to be saved by?

But even if the words "saved by faith alone" don't exist side by side in the Bible, they are certainly implicit in the writings of the NT. Very much so, especially in Paul's writings.

The same canNOT be said for Purgatory; praying to saints dead in the Lord for help and succor; Mary's IC, PV, Assumption into heaven and being crowned queen of heaven; being subject to the pope is necessary for salvation; celibate, unmarried clergy; etc. and etc. Not the slightest hint at any of these in the Bible and especially in the NT.
 

mica

Well-known member
Bonnie said:
Everything we need to know for salvation is in the Bible. Many of the Catholic doctrines we Protestants disagree with were not made official for often hundreds of years after the first century.
So? What does that have to do with anything?
...
what 'anything' is the purpose of this forum? is it sports, politics, airplanes? cars? or some other topic you want to detour to because you don't know or understand scripture or anything about salvation?

you sure don't want to believe anything that shows the truth found in God's word which is not what is taught by the rcc (the god of catholicism).
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member

Misfit

Well-known member
Your Scriptural quote, someone accomplishing a miracle with the authority of Jesus Christ, does not absolve us from also testing what anyone professing to be for Christ is teaching or proclaiming or admonishing.

Well, I don't see Jesus doing any testing here, so I don't see why any testing is needed. I am willing to accept Jesus's words and move on with using them as an example in my dealings with others.

How do we know these concepts are true given these councils and synods happened many centuries ago?
I personally accept them as a matter of me believing that they as the leaders of the newly evolving Christian Church are being led by the Holy Spirit. They followed the Scriptures and came up with what they did. They saw the Scriptures talking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and called that the Trinitarian Godhead, or Trinity for short. They looked at Jesus the Christ and said he was fully human and fully divine, and I believe them - this was fighting the heresy of Arianism and they were/are right. Such views are the basic tenants of Christianity.
There is only one Christ. There is only one path to Him. There are no different ways. As He has told us:

John 14: 6 "Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Acts 4:11 "This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 John 4:2 "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."

2 Thess 1:7 "and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

No argument from me there. Th only difference we have is in some of the ways in which we worship Him. We believe in His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist for example and you don't. My spirit soars when I receive Him in Holy Communion, it is the true communion with God as far as I am concerned.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
romishpopishorganist said:
Same with Sola Scriptura. The fact that it was not until 1500 that Luther fully and explicitly articulated the doctrine of Faith alone and Bible only,
Pfffttt! All throughout the Bible God warns against adding or subtracting from His words and through Paul, said "do not go beyond what is written." But the RCC has done that in spades, for hundreds of years, "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." And thus, in vain worshiping God.
I was wondering how you were going to answer his post and now I know. You were only able to flub it off as if what he said was nothing, well it was and is exactly what happened. It was indeed fifteen hundred years before Luther brought that stuff out to the fore while disregarding some of the traditions of the Christian Church up until then.
The same canNOT be said for Purgatory; praying to saints dead in the Lord for help and succor; Mary's IC, PV, Assumption into heaven and being crowned queen of heaven; being subject to the pope is necessary for salvation; celibate, unmarried clergy; etc. and etc. Not the slightest hint at any of these in the Bible and especially in the NT.

Not the slightest hint of Purgatory?

(1 Cor 3) 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Not the slightest hint of unmarried clergy?

Jesus was celibate and unmarried.

St. Paul was celibate and unmarried'

The Apostles were told to leave their wives and follow Jesus.

1 Cor 7: 8-9

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion”

Not the slightest hint of Mary as Queen of Heaven? (The mother of the King (Jesus) is the Queen)

Luke Chapter 1: 31-33

31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David;

33 he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end.'

Rev 22 "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant…She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”

Note for Poster--only two links per post, except links to CARM articles or other CARM posts.--Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Misfit

Well-known member
Back then we were a hyper-legalistic "ONE STRIKE and you're OUT" denomination (But the music was a whole lot better).
Now they are more forgiving? That's good. After all, how many times does Jesus say we should forgive? Seven times? No, it is as you know seventy times seven. Church is the best place for sinners to be.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I was wondering how you were going to answer his post and now I know. You were only able to flub it off as if what he said was nothing, well it was and is exactly what happened. It was indeed fifteen hundred years before Luther brought that stuff out to the fore while disregarding some of the traditions of the Christian Church up until then.

Traditions are fine, so long as they do not contradict the Bible, or add or subtract from God's holy word. Your church has done both for centuries. Luther had every right to disregard those.
Not the slightest hint of Purgatory?

(1 Cor 3) 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
I knew these would be your "go-to" verses for Purgatory. This isn't about Purgatory at all, but about testing the work of church workers while they are alive. Whether what they build on the Foundation is made of "straw" or "gold", etc. The works are being tested AS with fire--the way fire would test gold, silver, costly stones, or wood, hay, or straw. What would happen to the latter 3 if tested with fire? Would they survive? Yet those supposedly in Purgatory are not destroyed but supposedly purified.
Not the slightest hint of unmarried clergy?

No. Quite the opposite.
Jesus was celibate and unmarried.

St. Paul was celibate and unmarried'

The Apostles were told to leave their wives and follow Jesus.

1 Cor 7: 8-9

Just because some clergy were unmarried and celibate in the early church does not mean ALL would have to be.

The disciples did leave kith and kin behind in order to follow Jesus during His earthly sojourn. But did He tell them to permanently desert their wives??? But how soon you forget what Paul ALSO wrote in 1 Cor. 9:

1 Corinthians 9:5​

New International Version​

5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion”

Nothing here about clergy MUST remain single and never marry. Man, are you getting desperate and talk about reading something into the text that isn't there! Instead, we see this:

Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, having children who are believers and who are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. An elder must live a blameless life.

And

1 Timothy 3:2-4​

English Standard Version​

2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive...

In the NT, the words elders and overseers were used interchangeably to mean the men who were pastors in their individual churches. Later on, overseer (bishops) came to mean the leader of the churches in his district. Either way, they were married and had children. NOT celibate and single AT ALL.

Your church leaders do NOT follow Paul's God-given instructions at ALL.


Not the slightest hint of Mary as Queen of Heaven? (The mother of the King (Jesus) is the Queen)

Luke Chapter 1: 31-33

31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David;

33 he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end.'

Nothing here about Mary being crowned Queen of Heaven...must be written in invisible ink that only Roman Catholics can see....
Rev 22 "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant…She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”

Note for Poster--only two links per post, except links to CARM articles or other CARM posts.--Moderator
This has been discussed on here before. The woman in Rev. 22 isn't literally Mary but a SIGN--and represents first Israel, and then the church. Now, Mary was supposed to have been conceived without original sin and remained sinless her entire life. Now, pain in childbirth we are told in Genesis is the direct result of sin. This woman in Revelation is crying out in pain in childbirth....so....how could this be the virgin Mary? Since the sign is in pain from childbirth? Once again, your church is reading something into the verses that isn't there. it is seeing what it wants to see, not what is actually there.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Let me ask you this: Could a Catholic deny Mary's PV and IC, believing her to be a sinner like everyone else and in need of salvation, who had children with her lawful husband, Joseph, after Jesus' birth--and still remain a Catholic in good standing, who would be allowed to participate in the Mass and communion?
The Church throughout history and time moves from uncertainty to certainty regarding Truth. This is becasue the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all Truth.

Thus, there was a time in history when a Catholic could remain in good standing--and deny the IC of Mary, or the Assumption of Mary. There was a time in history when a Catholic could assert that there are less than 7 Sacraments or more than 7 Sacraments. There was a time in history when a Catholic could deny the infallibility of the pope or the universal supreme jurisdiction of the pope. There was a time in history when a council could be called by someone other than the pope.

Once the Church solemnly defines a doctrine, Catholics are no longer free to have their own opinions. Thus, once the IC was defined, Rome spoke, the matter is closed. Catholics are no longer free to deny the IC. Once the Assumption was defined, Catholics were no longer free to deny the Assumption. Once the infallibility of the pope was defined Catholics were no longer free to deny the infallibility of the pope.

So the answer to your question is: in the absence of clear teaching of the Church, directive or solemn definition, Catholics are free to debate doctrines. Once the Church acts in an official capacity, the issue is no longer free for debate or denial.

Examples of doctrines Catholics remain free to debate would be the doctrine of Limbo. The Church has never condemned the doctrine, but the Church has not officially adopted the doctrine. Catholics are free to form their own opinions on the doctrine. Most reject the doctrine. If the Church ever solemnly defines the question one way or the other, Catholics would be obliged to adopt that position. Another example is the death penalty. Prior to Pope Francis, Catholics were free to support the death penalty, despite the fact that the bishops tended not to. Pope Francis (I think stupidly) changed Church teaching on the death penalty and Catholics are no longer free to support its use.
Nonsense. The church has NOT always believed in Marian dogmas, nor believed in a celibate, unmarried priesthood, purgatory, etc. No poetry about it.
The Church has not always formally and officially professed belief in the Marian dogmas, a celibate priesthood, purgatory, etc.

Saying the Church has not always formally and officially professed belief in a doctrine is not the same thing as saying the Church invented the doctrine or never believed the doctrine.

The full equality of Christ with the Father was not formally and officially defined until 325AD. Does this mean the Church invented the Trinity in 325?
Pfffttt! All throughout the Bible God warns against adding or subtracting from His words and through Paul, said "do not go beyond what is written." But the RCC has done that in spades, for hundreds of years, "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." And thus, in vain worshiping God.
Again, your typical Protestant fundamentalist false dichotomy. What would you people do without them?

We do not "add" works to Faith Bonnie. Works are part and parcel of Faith. Faith is a gift from God--hence, when God sees our Faith, He sees Christ. Works that are the product of Faith----are done in Christ, thus when God sees our works done in Faith, He sees one and the same Christ.

It is not either or, but both AND.
But they are articulated in the Bible. All throughout the NT we are told that Jesus saves us "NOT on account of works which we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy." Grace through faith and NOT by works, and that is NOT of ourselves, but the GIFT OF GOD. "By grace you are saved; through faith--and that is NOT of yourselves; it is the GIFT OF GOD--and not by works, so no one may boast." So, if we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus and NOT by works--what else is there left to be saved by?
But you are ignoring James who explicitly says we are NOT saved by Faith alone but by works!
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Not the slightest hint of unmarried clergy?
So handle:
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

I imagine you'll do the old lie: "that was for THEM, but NOT FOR US!!!"
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The Church throughout history and time moves from uncertainty to certainty regarding Truth. This is becasue the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all Truth.

So, however did the church survive until the RCC came into existence? :rolleyes:

We have everything we need to know about salvation right in the Bible. No need for RCC add-ons that came centuries later. The HS didn't inspire the eyewitnesses or their close associates to write about these Marian dogmas... was the HS being forgetful?
Thus, there was a time in history when a Catholic could remain in good standing--and deny the IC of Mary, or the Assumption of Mary.

That is because it is nowhere taught in Scripture.
There was a time in history when a Catholic could assert that there are less than 7 Sacraments or more than 7 Sacraments. There was a time in history when a Catholic could deny the infallibility of the pope or the universal supreme jurisdiction of the pope. There was a time in history when a council could be called by someone other than the pope.

Yeah, there was a time in the history of the early church when no one was taught the heresies that the RCC teaches its constituents now. The church managed to survive and people managed to be saved without them.
Once the Church solemnly defines a doctrine, Catholics are no longer free to have their own opinions.

Yeah, they have to put their brains in a box, lock it, and throw away the key and blindly follow what their Magisterium teaches instead of "searching the Scriptures" as the Bereans did, to see if what they are being taught is the truth. They aren't as 'noble" as the Bereans were.
Thus, once the IC was defined, Rome spoke, the matter is closed.

yeah, for Roman Catholics and the EO, if I remember right. Not for the rest of Christendom, who know better, since it is nowhere taught in Scripture. The HS forgot to inspire the eye witnesses of Jesus Christ and/or their close associates to include it in the Gospels, or in the epistles the apostles wrote....right? How remiss of Him....
Catholics are no longer free to deny the IC. Once the Assumption was defined, Catholics were no longer free to deny the Assumption. Once the infallibility of the pope was defined Catholics were no longer free to deny the infallibility of the pope.

Goodness, however did the early Christians survive before these things were taught, since they are nowhere taught in the Bible? HowEVER were they saved without them...horrors!:eek:
So the answer to your question is: in the absence of clear teaching of the Church, directive or solemn definition, Catholics are free to debate doctrines. Once the Church acts in an official capacity, the issue is no longer free for debate or denial.

Meaning, Catholics are not encouraged to think for themselves and search the Scriptures on their own, to see if what the Magisterium taught them is the truth. Nope, just blindly go along with it....discernment be darned...
Examples of doctrines Catholics remain free to debate would be the doctrine of Limbo. The Church has never condemned the doctrine, but the Church has not officially adopted the doctrine. Catholics are free to form their own opinions on the doctrine. Most reject the doctrine. If the Church ever solemnly defines the question one way or the other, Catholics would be obliged to adopt that position.

Yep. More important to believe the Church than the Bible.
Another example is the death penalty. Prior to Pope Francis, Catholics were free to support the death penalty, despite the fact that the bishops tended not to. Pope Francis (I think stupidly) changed Church teaching on the death penalty and Catholics are no longer free to support its use.

So, Francis is teaching error, eh?
The Church has not always formally and officially professed belief in the Marian dogmas, a celibate priesthood, purgatory, etc.

Oh, do tell? But it still teaches those things--doesn't it?
Saying the Church has not always formally and officially professed belief in a doctrine is not the same thing as saying the Church invented the doctrine or never believed the doctrine.

But in your church's case, it did invent Papal infallibility; Mary's IC, PV, and co-mediatrix and Queen of Heaven status....
The full equality of Christ with the Father was not formally and officially defined until 325AD. Does this mean the Church invented the Trinity in 325?

No, but the concept of the Triune Godhead is strongly implied in the Bible, though not labeled. The same cannot be said for the aberrant Catholic dogmas.
Again, your typical Protestant fundamentalist false dichotomy. What would you people do without them?

No false dichotomy. IF the early Christians were saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord, then they didn't need Marian doctrines, papal infallibility, being subject to the Pope is necessary for salvation, etc....did they?
We do not "add" works to Faith Bonnie. Works are part and parcel of Faith. Faith is a gift from God--hence, when God sees our Faith, He sees Christ. Works that are the product of Faith----are done in Christ, thus when God sees our works done in Faith, He sees one and the same Christ.

yes, your church DOES add works as to what saves us! Once a person comes to faith in Christ, his or her good works help to increase their salvation and keep them saved. That is what I have read in your CCC. I agree that good works are the outcome of a true faith, but they do not help save us. Jesus saves--period.


It is not either or, but both AND.

But you are ignoring James who explicitly says we are NOT saved by Faith alone but by works!
I am ignoring nothing, but Catholics ignore what James writes in context. And what he wrote must be taken into context with what Paul has written so extensively about salvation by grace through faith and NOT by works. Theo1689 did a very thorough commentary on James 2:24 and what he really is talking about. James isn't talking about faith vs. works, but a living faith vs. a dead faith:


Remember that justified can have two meanings--one means declared "not guilty" and righteous, but the other is "vindicated/proven." As when Jesus said that "wisdom is justified by her works" (paraphrasing). Here Jesus means "proven" or "vindicated." That is also what James means in context.

Catholics are too ready to isolate certain passages from James, while ignoring the others IN CONTEXT.

So, once again, you are demonstrating the knee-jerk reaction to salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord AND NOT BY WORKS by quoting James 2:24. Without realizing what James means in context..
 
Last edited:

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Well, I don't see Jesus doing any testing here, so I don't see why any testing is needed. I am willing to accept Jesus's words and move on with using them as an example in my dealings with others.

Why would Jesus need to do any testing? He is the author and perfector of our faith, isn't He? My point was when anyone says they speak for God, in authority, we must test what they are telling us (1 Thes 5:21), even when they are doing great signs and wonders (Matt 24:24) because we are warned (Col 2:8) not to be taken captive by these false teachers. It is our own responsibility to insure we are following Jesus Christ, not a self-appointed institution, not a priest, a preacher, a pastor, an elder, a deacon, our parents, our spouses, friends, anyone. It is our duty. How do we do this? By testing what they tell us with Scripture. Nothing else. No traditions. No extra-Biblical ideologies and musings for Scripture is the ultimate authority until Jesus returns.

I personally accept them as a matter of me believing that they as the leaders of the newly evolving Christian Church are being led by the Holy Spirit. They followed the Scriptures and came up with what they did. They saw the Scriptures talking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and called that the Trinitarian Godhead, or Trinity for short. They looked at Jesus the Christ and said he was fully human and fully divine, and I believe them - this was fighting the heresy of Arianism and they were/are right. Such views are the basic tenants of Christianity.

To deny the trinity is to deny Jesus' deity. We see that in many cults and false religions like Islam, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, and others. I am trinitarian. I am unable to comprehend God's full character because I am finite and He is infinite, but I do hold this essential in faith because it is clear, Scripturally, that this is His character. Modalism. Gnosticism. Arianism. Yes, these are heresies (and I think there may be some on these forums that hold to these, not sure but...) but then God has told us not even the gates of Hell will prevail against His church and the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth and ergo, these heresies were revealed for what they were/are. Do we owe these men our gratitude for listening to the Holy Spirit and being used by Him? I tend to not hold them up, elevate them beyond being a brother in the faith and giving all the glory to who deserves credit for protecting His church, God.
No argument from me there. Th only difference we have is in some of the ways in which we worship Him. We believe in His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist for example and you don't. My spirit soars when I receive Him in Holy Communion, it is the true communion with God as far as I am concerned.

We have many differences my friend. And yes, communion being one of them. I know of no Scripture that states the bread and wine is transubstantiated into His body and His blood. A new (1215AD) teaching of the RCC and part of your "evolving Christian church" claim I would presume. Correct me if I am wrong.

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

This is Jesus explaining to His disciples what is going to happen to Him and what it will cost Him for our redemption. Paul illuminates this imperative in Corinthians. "Do this in remembrance of Me". Not partake of His literal body and blood. Not that the disciples were literally eating His body and blood either.

1 Corinthians 11: 23"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes."
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I am ignoring nothing, but Catholics ignore what James writes in context. And what he wrote must be taken into context with what Paul has written so extensively about salvation by grace through faith and NOT by works. Theo1689 did a very thorough commentary on James 2:24 and what he really is talking about. James isn't talking about faith vs. works, but a living faith vs. a dead faith:


Remember that justified can have two meanings--one means declared "not guilty" and righteous, but the other is "vindicated/proven." As when Jesus said that "wisdom is justified by her works" (paraphrasing). Here Jesus means "proven" or "vindicated." That is also what James means in context.

Catholics are too ready to isolate certain passages from James, while ignoring the others IN CONTEXT.

So, once again, you are demonstrating the knee-jerk reaction to salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord AND NOT BY WORKS.
If this is so obviously the teaching of James, why did old Marty Luther feel so threatened by James that he wanted to throw out the book?

I mean--a Scripture "scholar" like Marty Luther should have known what James meant.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
If this is so obviously the teaching of James, why did old Marty Luther feel so threatened by James that he wanted to throw out the book?

What makes you think he felt "threatened"? It has no gospel in it. And the Gospel meant everything to Luther. Unlike in your church. But James is in our German Bible.
I mean--a Scripture "scholar" like Marty Luther should have known what James meant.
He did. Still no gospel in it. But I duly note the contemptuous "Marty."
 
Last edited:
Top