Catholic Q&A Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: This is what I see and I find it confusing. I am a Christian, you are a christian. As Christians we are called to love one another, to unite despite our differences and proclaim the kingdom of Gad together. We were separated by the sins of man, and perhaps the will of God as well. But we are to transcend this to be one body in Christ, despite our differences. We as Catholics are called to love and support our protestant brothers and sisters and to unite in Christ no matter the differences.

But I see you trying to tear us down, to bring us down, make us small and invalid, to say we are not who we are and that the whole thing is a lie and that we aren’t even Christian. Is this what you have been called to do? Try an tear apart your fellow Christians point out the other’s sins and say “See, look how very bad you were and are?”, to divide and sow the seeds of hate between Christians? Between Christians.

Like it’s not hard enough to be Christian in this age, now we have to have other Christians tell us we’re bad horrible people who’s history and truth have all been a lie and suddenly this new reality, nobody has ever heard of is suddenly the truth?
My history has sins, your history has sins. Why should I not point yours out?

“He who has no sin,…”. Just sayin’ [/quote]
Pat,

You say you are confused, so why not ask for a clarification, instead of accusing me of hating the RC and rewriting history? In fact, I don’t need to rewrite history to find ample negative material about the RCC. Actually, it is you who has attempted to rewrite history by trying to put the excesses of Calvin in the same league as the RCC. Anyone who knows RC history knows this a reaaal stretch. When I pointed it out, you brought up Westboro. A group of 40 relatives, your joking right? Their behavior is despicable, but I haven’t read they have tried to burn anyone yet.

I will clarify my intent for you. My posts have nothing to do with any anger towards Roman Catholics such as yourself. Still, please feel free to be as vehement as you feel appropriate. I was educated in RC institutions for 4 years, so have an interest in the institution. I came over to this thread because my conversation with Chris was moved here. I’ve stayed because I know something about the topics being discussed. Do you remember the OP? It was this-

I don’t know if Forbes is a RC, but its a legit question that I KNOW many RC have. My answer to the above would be:

  1. Make sure you know what Scripture says, and you can read it yourself to find out.
  2. If a tradition contradicts the above, abandon it.

Now, if you have spent your whole life as a RC, I realize this will be difficult. But, it’s the right thing to do if you want to walk with God, because “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psa 138:2 KJV)

As a non-catholic this is no dilemna for me. But there are other serious issues. If I were to find my church does or condones that which contradicts Scripture in a serious way, I could abandon it. For example, if Westboro was a Southern Baptist church, and I was also a member of another SB church, I would ask my local church pastor if the SB leadership has publicly condemned Westboro’s behavior. If he were to say no, I would then ask if he condemns it. If he agreed, I would expect him to leave the SB convention at some point, if they would not make a public stand against Westboro. If he would not do this, I would leave the SB church and never attend one again.

From the Wikipedia article here (Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia) -

In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse had been made.

How many of the guilty priests have been defrocked? I think only a small percentage. EVERY SINGLE PRIEST guilty of such a crime should be. If I was a RC, I could not in good conscience remain attached to the institution.

But, because you are tied to this institution as a spiritual slave, you cannot do it. You read this as my attempt to tear you down. What I’m trying to do is help you see reality. You can walk with God without the RCC. But you must know Christ as the Scriptures define Him, and trust Him alone for your salvation. The RC does not teach this; she teaches “another gospel”, as Paul warned of. If you trust in her doctrines, I don’t believe you are a Christian. I believe you are deceived. It doesn’t matter that you use the bible, or similar vocabulary, you are no closer to salvation than a professed atheist. In fact, you are even worse off, because you assume you walk with God like those in Mt 7, who called Him Lord and assumed they were accepted of Him because of their “many wonderful works”. But Christ said, “then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

I know others who have left the RCC. It’s never been an easy decision. The first step is to see the lie, and my intent is to help you see it. I have spent hours typing posts for this thread. I don’t have ANY need to do so. I’m not here to debate you. Everything you have posted so far I have heard before more than once. If I have not helped you, perhaps I have helped some silent reader. I will post what I feel I should post; you may accept it, reject it, or avoid it. You may respond or ignore it. I will have no animosity towards you in any case.[/quote]

I think Tirib’s qualified statement is best - not what the Catholic church would later become.

Let’s define our terms more clearly. Let’s call, for the sake of argument, 25-100 A.D. the period of the apostolic church, in the sense that the last apostle most likely didn’t die until around 100 A.D. As I noted previously, Bauckham has demonstrated that, during their lifetimes, the apostles were the official guarantors and controls on the transmission and development of Christian doctrine. Now by 150 A.D., you already have the veneration of the saints and devotion to Mary being practiced. So the period from around 100-400 we could call the early church period. Here’s the problem - the shape of the New Testament canon was not fixed until the 3rd-4th centuries, in the early church period. And by the way, the 3rd century date is my way of being generous, as there is considerable evidence that the Muratorian Fragment should actually be dated to the 4th century. Nevertheless, the fact remains that distinctive Catholic doctrines had already developed by the time the canonization of New Testament Scriptures took place. Thus, it was effectively the Catholic church (albeit not fully formed) that was responsible for the canon.

Also, the use of Matthew 7 is a serious cheap shot, not to mention inapplicable. That text doesn’t say anything about affirming particular doctrines; the “wonderful works” aren’t deeds of obedience, but rather miracles. Jesus’ point is that what ultimately matters is obedience to the Father’s will (in context, that most likely refers to the moral imperatives Jesus laid out in the rest of the Sermon on the mount), not whether or not God works wonders through you. Furthermore, Jesus prefaces that comment with a clear discussion of the means of knowing true from false teachers (and by extension, true from false Christians), i.e., by their fruits, their actions. Now if someone displays good fruit (as MANY of our Roman Catholic brethren do), who are you to say that’s insufficient? You think God would actually say, “well bro, you were much more obedient to my commands than this Protestant dude here, but since he held to a better formulation of justification by faith, he’s in and you’re out” ? As Tirib rightly notes, there have been countless Christians throughout church history who have believed wrong things but nevertheless manifested genuine saving faith. Whether or not our Catholic brothers and sisters are wrong in what they believe is, in my opinion, debatable, but even if they are wrong, you cannot rightly make claims about their status before God, especially when they proclaim Jesus as Lord (the only one through whom we have access to the Father) and evidence saving faith manifested in good works.

242

I see your point KingKai. Keep it until Peter’s vision. The Jerusalem council clarifies this is not necessary. Yes, it’s quite possible. However, I don’t see this as making my point on Paul less valid.

243

My point in referencing Mt 7 is simply to make it clear that some assume they have the Lord’s acceptance, when in fact they DO NOT. Even though they are sincere. I have not abused the verse.

Good works always evidences saving faith?

244

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote: I don’t really think the texts support your singling out of Galatians 3:29 as the primary Pauline revelation. First of all, it is questionable whether or not the apostles were aware of what I mentioned earlier in Acts. According to the timeline of Acts, it appears that Paul had already begun to preach when Peter received his vision. Moreover, Peter’s vision did not include the recognition that Gentiles did not need to submit to the demands of the Torah. If you examine the progression of the gospel’s spread in Acts, you see (1) it begins with the Jews, God’s chosen people, (2) spreads to Samaria (where those closest religiously and ethnically to the Jews were located), (3) then to God-fearers (a particular category of Gentile who worshipped Yahweh, supported the temple, and often kept food laws, but refused to get circumcised). Cornelius, as it notes in 10:2, was a God-fearer. Now unlike Paul’s gospel, Acts 10-11 does not contain any reference to the irrelevance of Torah observance, including circumcision. Rather, Peter’s realization, which he spreads to the church, is that even Gentiles have been granted the opportunity to repent (11:17-18). This doesn’t mean that they were considered exempt from circumcision; in fact, given the necessity of the Jerusalem council and the fact that the early Christians still considered themselves Jewish, it is more than likely that Peter and the rest of the Jewish-Christian leadership expected Gentiles to undergo circumcision and to keep Torah.

Paul’s unique revelation is not that Gentiles also are part of the family of Abraham, but that SINCE they are part of the family of Abraham by faith, and since the “true” Jews had ALWAYS been part of Abraham’s true family only by faith, circumcision was unnecessary. The church in Jerusalem was not aware of this; they thought the Gentiles were simply becoming Jews, and Judaism already had a paradigm for how Gentiles could do that (i.e., baptism and circumcision). The early church initially took up that paradigm; Paul came in and demonstrated why it was wrong.
[/quote]The must be circumcised AND keep the Torah? Then what freedom have they gained. I don’t see how you can square this with the decision of the counsel in Acts 15. And in Acts 21, even when all of Jerusalem was in an uproar, they confirmed the same, see vs 25.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote: Secondly, Paul specifically says that the mystery he preaches in Ephesians 3 “which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to GodÃ?¢??s holy apostles and prophets” (3:5). In other words, Paul wasn’t the only one preaching the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s redemptive purposes nor the only one to whom their inclusion had been revealed.[/quote]No he wasn’t. But I believe the doctrine of the “body of Christ” was revealed to him first. He told the others.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote: Paul recognized that they possessed authority; he wanted to make sure that what he was teaching was truth and not some private “interpretation.” He went to the authorities, not to some random believers in Antioch. [/quote] Yes, after 3 years, he went and “conferred” with them.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote: My argument, however, is not in defense of Peter’s status as pope, but rather in defense of Peter’s unique authority in the early church. You don’t have to deny the latter to deny the former, and I don’t want to be the one denigrating or marginalizing one of God’s authoritative messengers, especially one as influential as Peter was in the early church. [/quote]Yes, I have said more than once I know Peter to be one of the main apostles. Why would you be perceived as denigrating or marginalizing Peter? Why would I.
[/quote]

It’s not about freedom, Mr. Chen. That wasn’t the central issue in the earliest days of the church. For the apostles, the original question was, “to whom does God offer salvation?” The Jews of the first century were convinced that salvation was their’s alone. It took time for the apostles to shake this belief. The issue in Acts 10-11 isn’t freedom; it’s inclusion, period. That might be your Protestant bias getting in the way, reading back into history the same concerns that you share. Just because our primary concerns as Protestants, like Luther’s, revolve around freedom from the demands of the Law, that doesn’t mean that the apostles originally thought that way. In fact, the Jews of the 1st century (and earlier, if you read the Old Testament - Psalm 119 is a GREAT example) thought that the Law was an AWESOME gift, not because it “made them conscious of sin,” but rather because it (1) set them apart as God’s unique people, and (2) in a world where the gods were thought to be capricious and unfair, expecting obedience to commands that the gods never told people about, the Law provided insight into the will of God.

So for the apostles initially, the major question was, “to whom does God extend mercy?” They start out focusing on the Jews, but then Peter realizes because of a revelation that God wanted to save the Gentiles as well. It was not until Paul, however, that the depths of God’s mercy toward the Gentiles was revealed, in that they were not expected to observe Torah nor required to be circumcised. It was not until the council in Acts 15 (note that, chronologically, it took place AFTER the revelation to Peter in Acts 10-11) that the apostles got on board with Paul’s teaching about the freedom from the requirement of circumcision and the demands of the Law.

Again, as I showed from Ephesians 3, Paul makes clear that this mystery has been revealed to the apostles and the prophets, not just to Paul. He received it independently of the other apostles, but it does not say that he received it FIRST. His syntax suggests that they received it independently of Paul as well.

You are effectively marginalizing Peter by attacking the evidence from the text that he possessed unique authority. My point is that you can still affirm that Peter possessed unique authority in the early church without supporting the papacy, and it does an injustice to Peter to deny that unique authority.

245

I myself have no ability to judge the internal or eternal state of any Roman Catholic. I believe the deeper they steep themselves in the unique doctrines of their church, the less likely it will be for them to come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Perhaps it comes off as a hard or intolerant attitude, nevertheless, it is what I believe to be true. It may be that some RC here is my true brother in Christ, and I will be glad to know it for a fact one day. However, I believe any person seeking a closer walk with God should leave the Roman church.

246

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You are effectively marginalizing Peter by attacking the evidence from the text that he possessed unique authority. My point is that you can still affirm that Peter possessed unique authority in the early church without supporting the papacy, and it does an injustice to Peter to deny that unique authority. [/quote]
Come on, do you mean attacking as in busting him up, or are we just debating.

Okay, how unique is his “unique” authority?

And take your time, I’m calling it a day.

247

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
My point in referencing Mt 7 is simply to make it clear that some assume they have the Lord’s acceptance, when in fact they DO NOT. Even though they are sincere. I have not abused the verse.

Good works always evidences saving faith? [/quote]

That’s a fair question. Jesus said that you will know false teachers by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. If (1) an individual worships the Triune God alone, (2) recognizes that Jesus Christ is Lord, and (3) obeys God’s commands, I would argue that their faith appears to be the saving kind and their good works testify to their faith. Those who have the Lord’s acceptance are those who obey him, not necessarily those who hold to a particular soteriological formulation.

Here is my question for you. Tirib answered it to some degree; he knows what’s at stake. Pat, Chris, and I have all asked it, but you still haven’t really given an answer. On what basis do you recognize the boundaries of the canon as determined by the church without affirming her interpretations or her other beliefs?

This is a foundational issue. The Scriptures do not themselves provide a prescriptive list of the canon’s contents. You say to your Catholic audience that the Bible clearly denies their beliefs. The problem, however, is that NO ONE reads the Scriptures without having to interpret; reading IS interpretation. Where interpretation is necessary, and in the absence of an authoritative interpretive tradition, fallibility is ALWAYS a threat. This is why I support historical-grammatical exegesis, as it examines the text in its original context in an attempt to discern what the original author intended to communicate. In other words, it provides a check on interpretation, though not a perfect one, as the exegete is ultimately limited by what can be demonstrated historically.

The point is, the Bible doesn’t “clearly” say much of anything. Just because someone translated the Bible for you into good English doesn’t mean that it was especially clear to them either. And as long as interpretation is necessary, your view is potentially as fallible as a Catholic’s. If they can be wrong, why can’t you? And since you are doing your best to find the truth (just like many serious Catholics do their best to find the truth), do you think you should be judged on whether or not you dotted your doctrinal i’s?

248

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

In deny this emphatically. The reason is simple. I do not believe the early christian church = the Roman Catholic church.[/quote]

And that is your history fail. It’s wishful thinking and that’s all.

I know facts won’t stand in the way of your ad hoc fantasy…

249

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: This is what I see and I find it confusing. I am a Christian, you are a christian. As Christians we are called to love one another, to unite despite our differences and proclaim the kingdom of Gad together. We were separated by the sins of man, and perhaps the will of God as well. But we are to transcend this to be one body in Christ, despite our differences. We as Catholics are called to love and support our protestant brothers and sisters and to unite in Christ no matter the differences.

But I see you trying to tear us down, to bring us down, make us small and invalid, to say we are not who we are and that the whole thing is a lie and that we aren’t even Christian. Is this what you have been called to do? Try an tear apart your fellow Christians point out the other’s sins and say “See, look how very bad you were and are?”, to divide and sow the seeds of hate between Christians? Between Christians.

Like it’s not hard enough to be Christian in this age, now we have to have other Christians tell us we’re bad horrible people who’s history and truth have all been a lie and suddenly this new reality, nobody has ever heard of is suddenly the truth?
My history has sins, your history has sins. Why should I not point yours out?

“He who has no sin,…”. Just sayin’ [/quote]
Pat,

You say you are confused, so why not ask for a clarification, instead of accusing me of hating the RC and rewriting history? In fact, I don’t need to rewrite history to find ample negative material about the RCC. Actually, it is you who has attempted to rewrite history by trying to put the excesses of Calvin in the same league as the RCC. Anyone who knows RC history knows this a reaaal stretch. When I pointed it out, you brought up Westboro. A group of 40 relatives, your joking right? Their behavior is despicable, but I haven’t read they have tried to burn anyone yet.

I will clarify my intent for you. My posts have nothing to do with any anger towards Roman Catholics such as yourself. Still, please feel free to be as vehement as you feel appropriate. I was educated in RC institutions for 4 years, so have an interest in the institution. I came over to this thread because my conversation with Chris was moved here. I’ve stayed because I know something about the topics being discussed. Do you remember the OP? It was this-

I don’t know if Forbes is a RC, but its a legit question that I KNOW many RC have. My answer to the above would be:

  1. Make sure you know what Scripture says, and you can read it yourself to find out.
  2. If a tradition contradicts the above, abandon it.

Now, if you have spent your whole life as a RC, I realize this will be difficult. But, it’s the right thing to do if you want to walk with God, because “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psa 138:2 KJV)

As a non-catholic this is no dilemna for me. But there are other serious issues. If I were to find my church does or condones that which contradicts Scripture in a serious way, I could abandon it. For example, if Westboro was a Southern Baptist church, and I was also a member of another SB church, I would ask my local church pastor if the SB leadership has publicly condemned Westboro’s behavior. If he were to say no, I would then ask if he condemns it. If he agreed, I would expect him to leave the SB convention at some point, if they would not make a public stand against Westboro. If he would not do this, I would leave the SB church and never attend one again.

From the Wikipedia article here (Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia) -

In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse had been made.

How many of the guilty priests have been defrocked? I think only a small percentage. EVERY SINGLE PRIEST guilty of such a crime should be. If I was a RC, I could not in good conscience remain attached to the institution.
[/quote]
I suppose you don’t see your logic fail here? Allegations doesn’t equal guilty. For every person guilty of any kind of sexual abuse, there is no punishment harsh enough. However, the reason they weren’t all the defrocked is, of those small percentage who were still living, we found not guilty. I don’t figure your bigotry will allow you the intellectual depth to see that there was a quite a few people looking for a pay day too.

You really think your immune. I haven’t been going tit-for-tat, but I will to illustrate an example.

“But because this country is predominantly Protestant, more children are abused by Protestant ministers than by Catholic priests”

It’s not a Catholic only problem. It’s everywhere and it’s representative of the population. But you want to use it as a weapon.

Look, I am not in need of saving so you can frankly stick it. I don’t need your doctrine of hate and divisiveness. I reject it. If you want to hate Catholics, that’s fine with me, get in line. Jesus told us that we would be persecuted, and so we are.

We have the history, we have stayed true to the apostolic tradition and we have the scriptures to back it up. You have been sold a bag of good about the church and you don’t want to listen to the truth. Your interested in yourself. You are concerned with your ego not God’s word. If you were interested in God’s word you would realize that we are not the boogie men, nor are we evil nor do we proclaim it. Our tenets have never changed and they are expressed in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed. It’s not more complicated than that.

Catholics have sinned, protestants have sinned, everybody sins. When you have no sin, feel free to throw your stones. But your bigotedness and hate speech is not indicative of sinless man, so I will stick my neck out and say, you have no room to talk.

Let me know when you are interested in truth and real discussion. But if you are interested in berating and elevating yourself, save it. You ain’t that big.

Perhaps you should “Remove the wooden beam from your eye” before worrying about the speck in mine.

250

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The point was that the “Church” (I’ll give ya the upper case C for future reference) tolerates (I would say engenders) vaaaast apostasy on a truly multitudinous scale.
[/quote]

Proof? Evidence? Links?

First, let’s make a distinction. I am not sure you’re talking about apostasy, I think you’re talking about heresy. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which MUST BE believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same and apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

Neither is tolerated or engendered. Unless of course you’re talking about rejecting your private interpretation of your incomplete canon.

Second, the Church does not tolerate. She impels all Christians to be a witness or martyr of the Gospel and to follow that which is taught by the Gospel.

[quote]The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church IMPELS them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known.

(CCC 2472)[/quote]

Further, we also know the consequences of disagreeing with certain teachings brings about de facto excommunication:

Pretty severe medicine. And, though we deal pretty severe medicine, we’re also impossibly forgiving…literally, we’ll forgive anything…anything! as long as you repent:

How we tolerate heresy, let alone apostasy is beyond me. We basically perfected the ability of throwing the book at people for doing wrong…like being angry at your neighbor because he knocked over your goat. We take away your ability to receive the sacraments…and if you do…boy you just step in a big pile. But then on the flip side, mass murderer of Christians? Oh, you are repentant…you’re cool. Go to confession, the priest has heard it all. Later we’ll make you a Bishop.

251

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If I were to behave and speak in these forums like many of the self professed Catholics here do? And if it were discovered by my church (I’ll take the little c )? I would be brought before the elders, rebuked in love and prescribed a path of proactive repentance which I would follow or be denied communion as a first step. If repentance were not forthcoming (more biblical steps in there) I would be publicly rebuked and excommunicated lest the glorious name of Jesus be reproached and dishonored on their watch with their tacit compliance.
[/quote]

1, you seem to place puritan values on the Catholic Church. We’re not puritans so you’re aversion to cuss words is what I’m thinking about here.
2, you act as if Catholics don’t get rebuked.
3, most of the Catholics I know here go to confession, because guess what we’re not perfect. I go to confession three times a week.
4, you act like I’ve never been rebuked. I won’t get into the details, because it’s none to the subject, but I was severely rebuked the other day by my priest for something I didn’t even see myself.

I’m a terrible Catholic, I get rebuked at least once a month about my clumsiness in dealing with people alone. Not including how often I get rebuked in confession.

252

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You are effectively marginalizing Peter by attacking the evidence from the text that he possessed unique authority. My point is that you can still affirm that Peter possessed unique authority in the early church without supporting the papacy, and it does an injustice to Peter to deny that unique authority. [/quote]
Come on, do you mean attacking as in busting him up, or are we just debating.

Okay, how unique is his “unique” authority?

And take your time, I’m calling it a day.[/quote]

You are attacking to make Catholics wrong. But you cut your nose to spite your face in the process. We share a history. If you rewrite history to remove Peter’s authority, you lose credibility in the process.
It’s very much like the Atheist who dismisses cosmology and adheres to “science” only to undermine the principles of science too when they do that.
If you undermine the church and it’s history, and replace it with one that doesn’t exist, and where Peter isn’t an authority and the church is invalid, then the things that stem from it are invalid too. It’s basic logic, this is nothing complicated. You undermine the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as recognized by the First Counsel of Nicaea in 325 A.D. ← a counsel of the Catholic Church. The the afore mentioned assembly of Synod of Carthage in 397 A.D. which put together the bible cannon. Another Catholic counsel. Did the scriptures exist prior to that? Yes, along with hundreds of others that were being passed off as scripture. The counsel assembled to separate the divinely inspired from the not divinely inspired from the plain out fake. If the church was invalid, then this cannon may in fact be wrong.

Was this entity identified as Catholic? In apostolic times, it was known as the way. The first know mention of ‘katholikos’ was by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D. in reference to the church. As the church was a universal entity for all men. It was the apostolic church.

Apostolic tradition was broken in the 1500’s and no sooner. This is an indisputable fact. Deal with it. People ‘having issue’ with the church sooner than that didn’t break the apostolic tradition until then.

253

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
so he surely would be labelled anti-catholic.
[/quote]

So, you admit he’s a bigot. Thanks for admitting you quote bigots to make your point. [/quote]
Is he a bigot? Is he intolerant of others opinions? It seems you are a bit intolerant of his opinions; that would make you bigoted.
[/quote]

So a Jew should be tolerant of an anti-semitic’s point of view, a black man should be tolerant of the opinions of a Klansman? Woman should be tolerant of a misogynist’s opinion?

I don’t want to accuse you of not making the distinction between not tolerating someone’s opinion and not tolerating a person. But, it seems you aren’t.

254

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

In deny this emphatically. The reason is simple. I do not believe the early christian church = the Roman Catholic church.[/quote]

Of course not, because the phrase Roman Catholic didn’t pop up until the Reformation by Protestants. It was called the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch proves this in 110 AD.

255

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Perhaps it comes off as a hard or intolerant attitude[/quote]

No, just comes off as wrong.

256

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
My point in referencing Mt 7 is simply to make it clear that some assume they have the Lord’s acceptance, when in fact they DO NOT. Even though they are sincere. I have not abused the verse.

Good works always evidences saving faith? [/quote]

“So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
(James 2:17 ESV)”

I wouldn’t go saying that St. James’ Epistle is less important than St. Paul’s.

Further, there in context and for the audience, when Paul refers to works, particularly in Romans, he is speaking of ‘works of the law’ meaning mosaic law, not that we are not to do good works as a part in parcel. Even demons know Jesus Christ is lord, that will not save them.

257

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
My point in referencing Mt 7 is simply to make it clear that some assume they have the Lord’s acceptance, when in fact they DO NOT. Even though they are sincere. I have not abused the verse.

Good works always evidences saving faith? [/quote]

That’s a fair question. Jesus said that you will know false teachers by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. If (1) an individual worships the Triune God alone, (2) recognizes that Jesus Christ is Lord, and (3) obeys God’s commands, I would argue that their faith appears to be the saving kind and their good works testify to their faith. Those who have the Lord’s acceptance are those who obey him, not necessarily those who hold to a particular soteriological formulation.

Here is my question for you. Tirib answered it to some degree; he knows what’s at stake. Pat, Chris, and I have all asked it, but you still haven’t really given an answer. On what basis do you recognize the boundaries of the canon as determined by the church without affirming her interpretations or her other beliefs?

This is a foundational issue. The Scriptures do not themselves provide a prescriptive list of the canon’s contents. You say to your Catholic audience that the Bible clearly denies their beliefs. The problem, however, is that NO ONE reads the Scriptures without having to interpret; reading IS interpretation. Where interpretation is necessary, and in the absence of an authoritative interpretive tradition, fallibility is ALWAYS a threat. This is why I support historical-grammatical exegesis, as it examines the text in its original context in an attempt to discern what the original author intended to communicate. In other words, it provides a check on interpretation, though not a perfect one, as the exegete is ultimately limited by what can be demonstrated historically.

The point is, the Bible doesn’t “clearly” say much of anything. Just because someone translated the Bible for you into good English doesn’t mean that it was especially clear to them either. And as long as interpretation is necessary, your view is potentially as fallible as a Catholic’s. If they can be wrong, why can’t you? And since you are doing your best to find the truth (just like many serious Catholics do their best to find the truth), do you think you should be judged on whether or not you dotted your doctrinal i’s?[/quote]

THIS ^^^ all the way.

This is Christian brotherhood, sharing faith and strengthening one another. If you tear down another person, what is the fruit of your work?

258

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

In deny this emphatically. The reason is simple. I do not believe the early christian church = the Roman Catholic church.[/quote]

Of course not, because the phrase Roman Catholic didn’t pop up until the Reformation by Protestants. It was called the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch proves this in 110 AD. [/quote]
107 A.D. :slight_smile:

259

[quote]pat wrote:And that is your history fail. It’s wishful thinking and that’s all.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/timeline.htm

I know facts won’t stand in the way of your ad hoc fantasy…[/quote]

If nothing else, I certainly enjoy the history lessons around here. Really.

260

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< 1, you seem to place puritan values on the Catholic Church. >>>[/quote]I place the same biblical values on everybody.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< We’re not puritans so you’re aversion to cuss words is what I’m thinking about here. >>>[/quote]Included, but only a small overall aspect of my point. Not much time now Chris, sorry man.