nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

PDN

New mega thread time!

We're sick of the board being taken over by numerous threads where the same rather tired arguments and entrenched positions keep getting rehearsed over and over again.

So, if Protestants and Roman Catholics want to debate the merits of their respective positions this is the place to do it. Any new threads started for this purpose will be locked.

It is OK, in other threads, to say "as a non-Catholic I believe this" or "as a Catholic I don't believe this". That's fine, and people can note your position. But once it moves into arguing against Protestantism or against Catholicism then this is the thread to bring it to.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, that's not just my opinion. Christ gave us one Church and expected unity amongst Christians. There was for a while, in Europe at least, and then things changed.

I have challenged this notion more than once now. There were multiple different types of church in Christianity in the first century. The RCC didn't exist as a structured entity as it is today until the fourth century. There are churches that date from the Apostles in the first century, which aren't in communion with the RCC.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic reference. Im sure if there was a better reference she would be using it.

This is just you believing everything that people tell you. Sometimes, we have to think about why people do things. The Latin isn't the original language, therefore it makes little sense that one would translate from Latin to English rather than from Hebrew or Greek to English.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It depends on what is argued not and the effect that has on the soul.
e.g celibacy. Jesus set the bar high but scripture allows for married clergy.
Catholicism follows Christ and sets the bar high. Other Catholic rites allow married clergy and there is no conflict.

Celibacy is an unreasonable restriction that was never imposed upon clergy either in the Old Covenant Levite priests, or in respect to the New Covenant ministers. A celibate life, isn't for all, not even for all ministers. It is often effective to have some ministers who have lived a married life who can relate to that well. Indeed, it is also good to have those who have lived a celibate life to relate to those who are doing the same.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Contrast
Catholicism - all rites - does not allow women priests and openly gay clergy.
Other denominations allow women clergy and openly gay clergy including cohabiting. This is clearly not scriptural.

This isn't quite accurate. You make it out as if all denominations do this, or even all churches in a single denomination do this. This simply isn't correct.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I get an orchestra of 30 players together, give them each a similar but different arrangement of the same piece.
What will it sound like when played?
Speed, key signature, interpretive marks, pauses, recitatives - if they are not all synced it's cacophony.
We need to be working from the same piece under the same direction.

Comparing the RCC to a musical piece, is just absurd. It's out of context.

StealthRolex wrote: »

No matter. My point is when it comes to the aorist tense it can be past or present.
The Latin Vulgate encompasses "best fit" in this example. In regards to the Bible in general Protestants admit that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible, and it is only since the Reformation that conflicting versions have appeared.
Lets face it, only one version can be as correct as it can be. Why have more than one reference document?

It doesn't though. If it did, the people who were putting the New Jerusalem translation, which is a RCC translation together would have kept the older version instead of the newer.

Only one version can be correct is absolutely absurd. It is possible to phrase a sentence differently, while maintaining the meaning. Review, and constant study will lead to more accurate translations.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Encylopedia Brittanica only publishes one version at a time.
Software is released one version at a time.
Why not refer to only one version of the Bible?

The Bible, is a much more important text than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Different translations serve a different purpose. The Good News is in more simplex language, while the NRSV is a literal translation. Both are useful in different contexts.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is also a historical record. How many other history books get rewritten and reversion-ed ad hoc?

This is again, out of context entirely. The Bible is a book written in a foreign, and indeed ancient tongues. Therefore it is entirely acceptable that it would be translated multiple times. Indeed we even have multiple translations of René Descartes philosophy.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus did not believe that. If he did why then did he recruit Apostles and give them directives? Why did He say there were things He could not tell the Apostles then but would send the Holy Spirit later.
If Jesus is sufficient then you are relying on an unchanging history. Jesus is alive and living and so is His message which is kept alive by the workings of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

This is an assertion, that you haven't substantiated, that the RCC is the same as the early church. Indeed, I've called you out on it numerous times. If all one is going to do is repeat ones position over and over again ad-infinitum, I think it's fair to say that you aren't interested in discussion, but are interested in being an ideologue.

The Christian church can only exist, because Jesus allows it to exist. Therefore He is sufficient. The Christian church would be nothing without Jesus, or His resurrection. That's why Paul says that there would be no hope if Jesus were not raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14).

StealthRolex wrote: »

Likewise. However what happens if Jesus who is merciful steps aside so you face the Father who is Just?

I am assured, by faith that if I abide in Him, and if I believe His word, that I will be with Him until the end. (Romans 8:1). I will never deny Jesus, and I will always continue in Him.

I can be assured that I am saved. This is a key point that antiskeptic has made in the past.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus did not just give us Himself. He also gave us the Church.

I agree, he gave us the Christian church. Constantine gave us Roman Catholicism.

StealthRolex wrote: »

God the Father, Mary the Mother, Jesus the Son, us the Children of God.

I'm not sure about elevating Mary this high. Indeed, this has contributed to the Qur'anic understanding that Mary is to be worshipped.

Qu'ran 5:116 wrote:

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Like most families we all want to be in the same house. There are some who leave - Prodigal perhaps.
The Father is not happy until all his Children are back in the same house.

I think if we wish to be back in the same house, on a serious level, we will need to make a serious effort conform all our churches back to the original Gospel preached by the Apostles and Christ. I believe a lot including the RCC have deviated away from that.

For us the Catholic Church is the house of God in this life. We want all who have left the house to return. No questions asked.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus did not say remarriage after divorce was permissable.
He said divorce due to adultery is permissable.
He advised that whoever married a divorced woman, even one divorced because of adultery, commits adultery.

It might do your argument service to quote the passage.

Matthew 19:9 wrote:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

StealthRolex wrote: »

He said what God has put together no man can put asunder. This means that while you can separate and "divorce" on earth the marriage bond is permanent in heaven.

Didn't Jesus say when dealing with the Sadducee's question about the Resurrection (The Sadduccees didn't believe that we would live again) that we would be like the angels in heaven? (Mark 12:18-26).

StealthRolex wrote: »

We do not judge. However we are not tolerant of sin either which is why we are expected to go to confession and do our best not to sin. Not "try" but do all that we can not to sin. We fail and fail miserably but it is lifetimes work we are about, not instant gratification, success or achievement. For every sin we overcome there will be another waiting in the wings.

I believe that Jesus is at work in every individual, and that He will help us to overcome the work of the devil in every day life. We must aim to live a live like His, but we certainly don't need to work to be saved.

Confession is another topic we will have to touch upon. I think confession of course is a good thing, but how we confess is another question. I believe that people can confess before other members of the church, or a minister if they feel inclined, but I would also hold that people can confess before God.

StealthRolex wrote: »

use in a church is different to use by the Magisterium. There are childrens bibles too but we don't use them to inform doctrine.
Why do you have an issue with NRSV being used in a church? I', not seeing this as being an issue.

I don't have an issue with the NRSV being used in church. It just smacks in the face of Vulgate translations being better than translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The logical conclusion of your position concerning the Vulgate should be opposed to the NRSV being used in church.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well Jakkass, what can I say. I didn't write it but I found it well written.

Your usage of it in your signature means that you are in broad assent of its content surely?

Look, simply put, do you think that Protestants do not have a saving faith in Christ? - A yes or no answer would suffice.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Let me put is this way - we tend to see the prodigal son as one who walks away from Christ. What would have happened him if he never returned to his fathers house?
Maybe the Prodigal is an analogy for Protestants or non-Catholic Christians and his fathers house is an analogy for the Catholic Church.

I believe that would be an inappropriate usage of that analogy considering that neither Roman Catholicism or Protestantism existed at the time of Christ.

I also don't believe I am walking away from Christ, I'm holding to the Gospel in a way that I have never done so before in my life.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If there are 30,000 churches then either they are all right or only one is right.
That's not theoretical as we know Jesus started One Church.

It is also possible, that some one are right, and some are wrong. Or, that there is truth in all, but there are some serious difficulties in others.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think there is much misunderstanding about Vatican II and what it contains. It might be better to explore the changes you think caused rebellion so we can see if what people thought they were rebelling against were really worth rebelling against or was it all brought about by confusion fomented by the evil one.

Didn't Vatican II reform numerous practices within the RCC? - I don't think the changes caused "rebellion" in any way, but there were changes made in respect to other denominations that would go against your article for example. Vatican II was a renewal of the Spirit in the church according to many pro-Vatican II commentators. This would suggest that such a renewal was needed.

StealthRolex

Thanks Imaopml,

I'll stop making assertions about latin vulgate or DR as I stand corrected

It is good to note that the official source are the original documents

So if we really want to argue a point we're going to have to take the Churches word for it and everyone else will need to learn latin, greek and aramaic and gain access to the Vatican archives.

In the meantime we can check our copies for a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Look, simply put, do you think that Protestants do not have a saving faith in Christ? - A yes or no answer would suffice.

To be honest I cannot answer that. The best I can do is try to find out what the official position of the Church is.
If you find the Popes position first you will have your answer

I would however suggest that unless you believe in everything the Catholic Church and the Pope says you should you are making it difficult for yourselves.

Jesus was not in the business of pleasing people. He came to save souls.

The Pope is not in the business of pleasing people. His job is to save souls and feed the flock.

I ask you, is there any other religious leader who has eyes on heaven and does not spend time trying to please people or make money or foment dissent.

The Pope serves but one master. There are few if any other religious leaders who can claim the same.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I have challenged this notion more than once now. There were multiple different types of church in Christianity in the first century. The RCC didn't exist as a structured entity as it is today until the fourth century. There are churches that date from the Apostles in the first century, which aren't in communion with the RCC.

and I have at Jimis request put up two supporting posts, one of which quite clearly says we were here first so the onus is on you.

At least you appear to accept that from the 4th century until the reformation there was one true church.

If you believe the Catholic Church is wrong prove it.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

To be honest I cannot answer that. The best I can do is try to find out what the official position of the Church is.
If you find the Popes position first you will have your answer

Your article is problematic. It suggests that Protestants do not have a divine faith, and as a result of lacking this divine faith that we are not likely to attain salvation.

Do you agree with the author, or not? That's all I'm asking.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would however suggest that unless you believe in everything the Catholic Church and the Pope says you should you are making it difficult for yourselves.

OK, but this is still a very different argument than what your article is making. If this is really an account that all those who are ignorant of the Reformation need to read, surely you agree with it?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus was not in the business of pleasing people. He came to save souls.

The Pope is not in the business of pleasing people. His job is to save souls and feed the flock.

I'm not asking you to give me an answer pleasing to me, I'm asking you to give me an honest answer. Don't hold back.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I ask you, is there any other religious leader who has eyes on heaven and does not spend time trying to please people or make money or foment dissent.

There are quite a few I'd imagine. No doubt one could construct a criticism of any leader from the Archbishop of Canterbury onwards. I do believe that other men are focused on God and the Gospel, and this isn't the sole preserve of the Pope.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Pope serves but one master. There are few if any other religious leaders who can claim the same.

I could imagine that others could debate this, but I do believe that the Pope is interested very much in the Gospel, but he is not unique above all men for this interest.

I dealt with a lot more in that post, if you could deal with some of them, I'd really appreciate it.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is just you believing everything that people tell you. Sometimes, we have to think about why people do things. The Latin isn't the original language, therefore it makes little sense that one would translate from Latin to English rather than from Hebrew or Greek to English.

No. This is about trusting the Holy Spirit when He speaks through the Church.

I have since clarified by position regarding the latin vulgate.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Celibacy is an unreasonable restriction that was never imposed upon clergy either in the Old Covenant Levite priests, or in respect to the New Covenant ministers. A celibate life, isn't for all, not even for all ministers. It is often effective to have some ministers who have lived a married life who can relate to that well. Indeed, it is also good to have those who have lived a celibate life to relate to those who are doing the same.

Jesus set the bar high and the Church has followed that. There are other Catholic rites that do have married clergy. They are still Catholic and accept papal authority and the catechism and are part of the One True Church of Christ.
Jesus lived with his mother until He was 30. Many of those He grew up with had long since married and had children.
In Ireland if you live with your mammy 'til you're 30 the winking windows ask questions.

If Jesus could do it why can't others. He was human after all.
That other rites allow married clergy and are part of the Catholic church means what for your argument?
[/QUOTE]

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

and I have at Jimis request put up two supporting posts, one of which quite clearly says we were here first so the onus is on you.

Saying it isn't enough. Demonstrating that it is historically the case is another. I've already posted, on more than one occasion that your assumption is false, and I've given you reasons why it is false.

All you've done is linked to material, rather than presenting your own case.

StealthRolex wrote: »

At least you appear to accept that from the 4th century until the reformation there was one true church.

I accept that the Holy Spirit was present at the Council of Nicea.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you believe the Catholic Church is wrong prove it.

That isn't the way it works StealthRolex. You are making claims about the RCC, and they haven't been backed up, yet you continue to repeat them without adequate explanation. That's the issue.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't quite accurate. You make it out as if all denominations do this, or even all churches in a single denomination do this. This simply isn't correct.

Did I say all? It looks like I said "other". You could take that to mean "some" but you cannot take it to mean "all". If I meant all I would have said "all other".
Did I say "all other"? No I did not. If this is the way you want to discuss things...

Jakkass wrote: »

Comparing the RCC to a musical piece, is just absurd. It's out of context.

Those in heaven are sometimes said to join the heavenly chorus. If you expect to get there should you not be practicing?
Both reading from the one piece of music and following only one conductor.

I thought it was a nice analogy. You think its absurd, well, what can I say.

I don't see the true followers of Jesus saying his parables were absurd and out of context.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an assertion, that you haven't substantiated, that the RCC is the same as the early church. Indeed, I've called you out on it numerous times. If all one is going to do is repeat ones position over and over again ad-infinitum, I think it's fair to say that you aren't interested in discussion, but are interested in being an ideologue.

I resemble that remark

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I can be assured that I am saved. This is a key point that antiskeptic has made in the past.

Ah yes, OSAS. Tell me about the Apostle Judas Iscariot again. He was OSAS wasn't he. Is he in heaven?

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree, he gave us the Christian church. Constantine gave us Roman Catholicism.

Same Church - different name.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure about elevating Mary this high. Indeed, this has contributed to the Qur'anic understanding that Mary is to be worshipped.

You want to discuss "Mary worship"?

What is "Mary worship" when it's at home anyway. I though this was something only Protestants thought about.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus set the bar high and the Church has followed that. There are other Catholic rites that do have married clergy. They are still Catholic and accept papal authority and the catechism and are part of the One True Church of Christ.

I'm aware of this. This doesn't help your argument.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus lived with his mother until He was 30. Many of those He grew up with had long since married and had children.
In Ireland if you live with your mammy 'til you're 30 the winking windows ask questions.

Although an interesting cultural justaposition between the Jewish Semitic culture of Jesus' age, and the modern Irish Western culture of our age. I don't see what relevance this has to prohibiting marriage amongst clergy.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If Jesus could do it why can't others. He was human after all.
That other rites allow married clergy and are part of the Catholic church means what for your argument?

I think your first premise is inaccurate. Although Jesus was in human flesh, He was also infallible and represented the fullness of the Trinity.

The fact that married clergy are allowed in the Latin Rite of the RCC is a huge blow to your argument that celibacy should be compulsory since many ministers in and outside of the RCC already serve God. It also is unbiblical that all clergy were expected to be celibate.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You want to discuss "Mary worship"?

What is "Mary worship" when it's at home anyway. I though this was something only Protestants thought about.

I'm saying that the elevation of Mary has confused people about the Gospel. The criticism of Christians raising Mary to the level of God in the Qur'an is a perfect historical account of how people have misunderstood the Trinity on the account of the elevation of Mary.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ah yes, OSAS. Tell me about the Apostle Judas Iscariot again. He was OSAS wasn't he. Is he in heaven?

No, it isn't OSAS. Assurance of Salvation is a doctrine held by both Arminians and Calvinists and is entirely separate from OSAS.

Unconditional Eternal Security (known sometimes as Once Saved Always Saved - hence OSAS) teaches that once someone is saved then it is impossible for them to lose that salvation.

Assurance of Salvation teaches that you can know that you are saved (in line with numerous Scripture verses) but that you can, by a deliberate act of your own will, apostasise and renounce your salvation.

philologos

Assurance of salvation, effectively as far as I am concerned means that we divorce ourselves from the traditional forms of other religion. It makes Christianity in effect entirely unique.

Rather than saying that you must follow the rules, and I will reward you by salvation, it says, I love you, I will forgive you, now repent and live a life serving me.

The movation is different. You accept God's love, so that you can serve Him for no other reason other than that you love Him, and you love His truth. Rather than serving Him with no other reason apart from to try get a ticket to heaven.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that the elevation of Mary has confused people about the Gospel. The criticism of Christians raising Mary to the level of God in the Qur'an is a perfect historical account of how people have misunderstood the Trinity on the account of the elevation of Mary.

Who is raising Mary to the level of God?

Do they not know God is a Jealous God and wants no other gods before him. They will burn in hell, probably.

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

Assurance of salvation, effectively as far as I am concerned means that we divorce ourselves from the traditional forms of other religion. It makes Christianity in effect entirely unique.

Rather than saying that you must follow the rules, and I will reward you by salvation, it says, I love you, I will forgive you, now repent and live a life serving me.

The movation is different. You accept God's love, so that you can serve Him for no other reason other than that you love Him, and you love His truth. Rather than serving Him with no other reason apart from to try get a ticket to heaven.

Jackass, Catholics don't love God because we're only trying to get a ticket to heaven, it's absurd to even suggest it....or that it is the way in which we look at our faith in Christ. It's seems to be popular propoganda though, along with a few other whoppers I've seen...

Where did the doctrine of 'Assurance of Salvation' originate?

So, you say it's all about 'Motivation' on your behalf, and this brings about a truer trust and faith in Jesus and his saving grace.......So you will feel better about loving God 'knowing' that you are 'Assured of Salvation'....

Well, that sounds to me like I can't love him 'unless' I have the assurance of my saving....

It's a variation; albeit a more clever one, on OSAS, but it's osas by any other name...

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Jackass, Catholics don't love God because we're only trying to get a ticket to heaven, it's absurd to even suggest it....or that it is the way in which we look at our faith in Christ. It's seems to be popular propoganda though, along with a few other whoppers I've seen...

I've not said that all Catholics are in this situation. I do think that it does lend itself to people thinking that going to church and other things makes them good before God, and that people need to work on doing things to be appreciated by God.

lmaopml wrote: »

Where did the doctrine of 'Assurance of Salvation' originate?

I believe it originated in the New Testament.

lmaopml wrote: »

So, you say it's all about 'Motivation' on your behalf, and this brings about a truer trust and faith in Jesus and his saving grace.......So you will feel better about loving God 'knowing' that you are 'Assured of Salvation'....

No. Loving God will happen anyway. The motivation for loving God isn't to work ones way to salvation, but is just out of genuine appreciation for Him.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, that sounds to me like I can't love him 'unless' I have the assurance of my saving....

Where did I say that? - It's not about not being able to love God unless. It's a statement of belief. I believe that God has given us free grace, to live a new life for Him. I appreciate this and I will live for Him.

It's irrelevant whether or not one hypothesises that God may be a different way. The point is that I would personally believe that God is this way.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's a variation; albeit a more clever one, on OSAS, but it's osas by any other name...

PDN's point is useful. It can lend itself to OSAS (which I'm not 100% sure of) but it can also lend itself to Arminianism. I.E - I can be sure of salvation for as long as I believe in Jesus.

StealthRolex

Jakkass,

I can see us going around in circles here as none of my answers and none of the answers from Catholicism or Catholic Apologetics seem to be enough to satisfy you so lets try this from a different tack.

You see while salvation is something we are all interested in one of the things that is more tangible is what we don't want to happen when we die.

We don't want to go the Hell.

So let me ask you, why are you not a Catholic?

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

Where did the doctrine of 'Assurance of Salvation' originate?

In the Bible.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Acts 13:39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

John 5:24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

1 John 5:10-12 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

1 John 4:16-18 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession -- to the praise of his glory.

It's a variation; albeit a more clever one, on OSAS, but it's osas by any other name..

It is nothing like OSAS because it is not unconditional. You can choose to reject the relationship, deny Christ, and walk away.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

You see while salvation is something we are all interested in one of the things that is more tangible is what we don't want to happen when we die.

That's true, but a lot of it is also down to what salvation means here. Salvation means that God will begin to work in peoples lives and that God will use us for the furthering of His Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. I am being, and I hope to continue to be used by God for this aim.

StealthRolex wrote: »

We don't want to go the Hell.

Is that your reason for loving God, or do you love God for God's sake?

StealthRolex wrote: »

So let me ask you, why are you not a Catholic?

I was never a Roman Catholic. I've never had any formal involvement (baptism, confirmation and so on) in that church.

The reason why I am not a Roman Catholic now, is that I find that I find that there is a more reasonable assessment of the Scriptures elsewhere. There is much that is right about the RCC, but there is much that I feel is inaccurate, and as such I find myself in a better place outside it.

It is nothing personal to those who are members of that church, but I feel that I have the tools to learn about Jesus and God through the church I am currently a member of, and people from other denominations.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

The reason why I am not a Roman Catholic now, is that I find that I find that there is a more reasonable assessment of the Scriptures elsewhere. There is much that is right about the RCC, but there is much that I feel is inaccurate, and as such I find myself in a better place outside it.

You "feel" it is inaccurate.

Have you actually researched it and looked at it forensically and objectively to see if your feelings are warranted?

You use the words "reasonable" and "inaccurate". Well inaccurate is just a slight modification from accurate.
So what is more reasonable than a slight inaccuracy?

I think it is reasonable for you to be more specific here. As you are only talking about slight inaccuracies maybe we can explore these areas to see if there is any genuine concern.

btw the "reasonable" assessment you find elsewhere are interpretations made under whose authority again? I can't recall who your spiritual director is - maybe you mentioned him before and I missed it - sorry.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

That's true, but a lot of it is also down to what salvation means here. Salvation means that God will begin to work in peoples lives and that God will use us for the furthering of His Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. I am being, and I hope to continue to be used by God for this aim.

Oh dear, and I thought salvation was getting into heaven. I didn't realise I got in to heaven while I was still here. I thought I had to die first.

Does that mean that Grace is not real? I thought it was by grace that God worked in our lives and that without grace God is not with us.

So it is salvation, and not grace. I'll have to pop off to some of the myriad Protestant websites to verify that.

Given that there are so so many different denominations and churches of protestantism maybe you can point me towards a few reasonably accurate ones? I'd really hate it if I got to one that was going to be inaccurate in its assessment.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Oh dear, and I thought salvation was getting into heaven. I didn't realise I got in to heaven while I was still here. I thought I had to die first.

Not only, the manifestations of grace should impact the believer in the new life that they live.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does that mean that Grace is not real? I thought it was by grace that God worked in our lives and that without grace God is not with us.

It is, I think you are misinterpreting my post.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So it is salvation, and not grace. I'll have to pop off to some of the myriad Protestant websites to verify that.

There isn't much point in consulting websites. Look and see what the Scriptural case is for yourself.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Given that there are so so many different denominations and churches of protestantism maybe you can point me towards a few reasonably accurate ones? I'd really hate it if I got to one that was going to be inaccurate in its assessment.

See above.

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't much point in consulting websites. Look and see what the Scriptural case is for yourself.

We have seen on another thread that there are widely divergent opinions on key morals issues. One example is contraception. Some say it is ok and we should not worry about it. Catholics would say it is a sin. The Church teaches this.

Some say scripture doesn't address it. I'd say it does, actually, along with Tradition and the Church Fathers: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

So this is problematic. Very problematic. We have here something that is either sinful or it is not. If it is sinful, it is important that we know that; if it is not sinful, then we needn't worry.

Anything pertaining to sin and salvation is no small matter. Sin that is not recognized as such cannot be repented nor forgiven. Unforgiven sin at death results in the loss of eternal life. The wages of sin are death. I don't want to get into a Catholic discussion on mortal and venial sin at this point.

What we are talking about here is whether or not contraception is sinful.

Only the Catholic Church has provided the constant teaching that artificial contraception is immoral. An evil act produces bad fruits. We have clearly seen that with the fulfilment of Pope Paul VI's prophecy in Humanae vitae.

I would ask any non-Catholic why contraception is not in any way sinful and why therefore we shouldn't worry about it.

Fanny Cradock

StealthRolex wrote: »

Oh dear, and I thought salvation was getting into heaven. I didn't realise I got in to heaven while I was still here. I thought I had to die first.

Salvation happens in this life. I think Christian eschatology is a little more complicated than what you would have us believe.

I suggest that the early Christians didn't believe that getting into heaven was the ultimate goal and that following Christ was somehow the means by how one got there. Instead, they were firmly fixed on the idea of renewal through Christ - both of the self in terms of salvation in this life and of all creation in terms of the ultimate hope for a new heavens and a new earth.

lmaopml

The promises made in the gospels are 'all' true, absolutely true, but they are conditional on faith. The Catholic church doesn't teach us that we won't be saved, and to go around tormented, but it doesn't shirk the responsibility of letting us know how to 'live' in faith...It teaches us to have faith, hope, and love...most especially 'love' of God..

It just doesn't tell us we 'are' saved at a point in time, it provides the tools through the Holy Spirit to grow in 'faith' and to allow Jesus to work his will through us more fully...

We can't be a 'self vindicating' authority on our own saving to the distraction of understanding the 'abiding' in Grace, and understanding the Spirit lives within...There is a 'balance'...

One of the most beautiful prayers by St. Francis Xavier sums up the message really well...

My God, I love Thee, not because
I hope for heaven thereby;
Nor yet since they who love Thee not
Must burn eternally.
Thou, O my Jesus, Thou didst me
Upon the Cross embrace;
For me didst bear the nails and spear,
And manifold disgrace;
And griefs and torments numberless,
And sweat of agony;
E’en death itself; and all for one
Who was Thine enemy.
Then why, O blessed Jesus Christ,
Should I not love Thee well,
Not for the sake of winning heaven,
Or of escaping hell;
Not with the hope of gaining aught,
Not seeking a reward;
But as Thyself hast loved me,
O ever-loving Lord?
E’en so I love Thee, and will love,
And in Thy praise will sing,
Solely because Thou art my God,
And my eternal King.

lmaopml

Oops duplicate post

philologos

smurfhousing wrote: »

I don't want to get into a Catholic discussion on mortal and venial sin at this point.

We might have to for clarification.

smurfhousing wrote: »

What we are talking about here is whether or not contraception is sinful.

You've read on another thread, that I don't think Genesis 38 is in reference to contraceptives, but to the failure of Onan to fulfil his ancestral duty to his brothers widow. That's the context of the passage.

smurfhousing wrote: »

I would ask any non-Catholic why contraception is not in any way sinful and why therefore we shouldn't worry about it.

I would hold that it is not sinful within marriage, as contraceptives themselves aren't explicitly prohibited.