Why would anyone look to the Catholic Church when

[PsyOps]

I agree with what you said, but I believe your salvation answer is incomplete. What is your doctrine of salvation, if you don't mind? Is it NT as the Gospel preaches, or do you have other requirements?

There are no other requirements than accepting Christ as your savior. Being born again. Other things (love in a new light, serving others, giving of the heart, giving through the heart, fellowship, etc…) are a result of this, not preconditions; nor are ALL of these requirements in order to retain your salvation.

 

[b23hqb]

There are no other requirements than accepting Christ as your savior. Being born again. Other things (love in a new light, serving others, giving of the heart, giving through the heart, fellowship, etc…) are a result of this, not preconditions; nor are ALL of these requirements in order to retain your salvation.

Unfortunately, that simple Jesus spoken criteria for salvation is not what the catholic church follows. The catachecisms, penance, baptism, the sacraments, etc., are necessary and required for salvation, according to the rcc.

I believe that is the whole point in the chuckster's thread.

 

[PsyOps]

Unfortunately, that simple Jesus spoken criteria for salvation is not what the catholic church follows. The catachecisms, penance, baptism, the sacraments, etc., are necessary and required for salvation, according to the rcc.

I believe that is the whole point in the chuckster's thread.

And Catholics may believe, all they want, that I'm not saved if I don't follow those things; but I'm not willing to take the leap of assuming that aren't save simply because they believe such things. If their core tenet is salvation through Christ, then I have no place in judge who gets in and who doesn't. I think it shows poor Christian character to judge this way.

 

[onel0126]

Unfortunately, that simple Jesus spoken criteria for salvation is not what the catholic church follows. The catachecisms, penance, baptism, the sacraments, etc., are necessary and required for salvation, according to the rcc. I believe that is the whole point in the chuckster's thread.

We stupid Catholics are just doing what the Apostles did and their followers did and so on...if you are right then Catholic's are still OK. But what if Catholics are right? Ugh oh...

 

[b23hqb]

And Catholics may believe, all they want, that I'm not saved if I don't follow those things; but I'm not willing to take the leap of assuming that aren't save simply because they believe such things. If their core tenet is salvation through Christ, then I have no place in judge who gets in and who doesn't. I think it shows poor Christian character to judge this way.

Ain't judging. Just stating the NT biblical facts of salvation as spoken by Jesus, recorded by the apostles, in their epistles, and in the epistles of Paul, and Hebrews.

One needs to take that on it's own merit. Jesus said one way, and one way only. Anything else added by man to his finished, divine and supernatural work shows unbelief in the Lord's ability to defeat sin on His merit.

 

[b23hqb]

We stupid Catholics are just doing what the Apostles did and their followers did and so on...if you are right then Catholic's are still OK. But what if Catholics are right? Ugh oh...

Get a grip, onel. The apostles were long dead, including John, about 100 years before the catholic concepts began to arise. It was well after what the eyeball to eyeball followers with Jesus had learned and adhered to in the Acts.

 

[PsyOps]

We stupid Catholics are just doing what the Apostles did and their followers did and so on...if you are right then Catholic's are still OK. But what if Catholics are right? Ugh oh...

If Catholics are right... then what?

BTW... 'what if' sounds like you have doubts.

 

[onel0126]

Get a grip, onel. The apostles were long dead, including John, about 100 years before the catholic concepts began to arise. It was well after what the eyeball to eyeball followers with Jesus had learned and adhered to in the Acts.

What of it? So you discount everything after the death of the last apostle? Interesting because most of the concepts you believe in beyond salvation necessities aren't even discussed by anyone until 1500 years after that.

Be careful poo pooing tradition and adding things. I'll bet next month's mortgage that you add that little Protestant diddy to the end of the Lord's Prayer when you recite it...

 

[b23hqb]

If Catholics are right... then what?

BTW... 'what if' sounds like you have doubts.

Who said "what if"? I sure didn't. I have no doubt about salvation according to God's Word. I sense a bit of wondering on your part.

Catholics that practice the rcc requirements of salvation will not be in the right, sad to say. It will be theirs, and your, decision to determine.

 

[Radiant1]

Wow, too much muck and mire to wade through individually. I will say this:

1) Catholics are saved through grace by the merits of Jesus Christ. Through that grace comes both faith and works. Frankly, if I were to say I'm saved simply because I believe, then I'm placing my salvation on myself, and that in and of itself is a "work" is it not? People might want to think about that.

2) Non-Catholics may very well be saved, we typically don't usurp the judgment of God. It's pretty obvious who goes around saying who is and isn't saved on this forum, and it isn't the Catholics.

3) Catholic "concepts" are biblical, none of this ludicrous 100 years bulljive that b23 wants to spit out just because he interprets scripture passages differently and makes himself his own authority (as does Chuckie and every other evangelical etc). Catholicism started in Matthew 16:18. I've said it before and will apparently have to repeat myself -- if it were not for the Catholic Church spreading the word of God, then you wouldn't even have a bible.

Thank you, that is all...for now...but be assured I can back up what I say, and I have a lot more to say if necessary.

 

[PsyOps]

Who said "what if"? I sure didn't.

Who was my reply to?

 

[onel0126]

Who said "what if"? I sure didn't. I have no doubt about salvation according to God's Word. I sense a bit of wondering on your part. Catholics that practice the rcc requirements of salvation will not be in the right, sad to say. It will be theirs, and your, decision to determine.

Not what if, what of it I said. And, stop trying to dodge my question about the Lord's Prayer...

 

[b23hqb]

Wow, too much muck and mire to wade through individually. I will say this:

1) Catholics are saved through grace by the merits of Jesus Christ. Through that grace comes both faith and works. Frankly, if I were to say I'm saved simply because I believe, then I'm placing my salvation on myself, and that in and of itself is a "work" is it not? People might want to think about that.

2) Non-Catholics may very well be saved, we typically don't usurp the judgment of God. It's pretty obvious who goes around saying who is and isn't saved on this forum, and it isn't the Catholics.

3) Catholic "concepts" are biblical, none of this ludicrous 100 years bulljive that b23 wants to spit out just because he interprets scripture passages differently and makes himself his own authority (as does Chuckie and every other evangelical etc). Catholicism started in Matthew 16:18. I've said it before and will apparently have to repeat myself -- if it were not for the Catholic Church spreading the word of God, then you wouldn't even have a bible.

Thank you, that is all...for now...but be assured I can back up what I say, and I have a lot more to say if necessary.

Show me in the NT where anyway but through Jesus only, leads to salvation. And your part of Peter being the "rock"upon which the church would be built - not quite so. We have been over that a number of times in the past. The only rock the Christian church is built on is Christ. Peter (Petros - rock, or rock-man) "upon this rock (petra - small stone, a feminine form for "rock", and not a name)" was appointed to be one of the leaders and builders, not the leader, and he certainly was not the foundation.

Should I quote specific portions of the ccc that require works to gain salvation according to rcc doctrine? There's a whole lotta workings going on added to faith to be saved in the rcc.

 

[b23hqb]

Not what if, what of it I said. And, stop trying to dodge my question about the Lord's Prayer...

Where do you get me quoting you? I was quoting Psy who said that. Try reading a bit. As for the Lord's prayer, it really does not come up that much. We all know it, believe it, but we rarely, if ever, have as part of any service except maybe a funeral or wedding.

 

[b23hqb]

Who was my reply to?

onel. I stand corrected and misread the author of that line.

 

[b23hqb]

Not what if, what of it I said. And, stop trying to dodge my question about the Lord's Prayer...

Read your post #64. "What if".

 

[onel0126]

As for the Lord's prayer, it really does not come up that much. We all know it, believe it, but we rarely, if ever, have as part of any service except maybe a funeral or wedding.

I know this is the case. I find this both odd and sad. Getting back to the addition of non-biblical text to the end though...why?

 

[hotcoffee]

New Book Traces Sad Recent History of Priest Sex Scandals

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/08/10/new-book-traces-sad-recent-history-of-priest-sex-scandals/

This is a serious question though. Why would anyone look to the Catholic Church for guidance in faith and morals when they've been covering up abuse for years?

I tracked a lot of the court cases in the news about the Catholic church and posted them on an ex-catholic website for a long time.

Chuckt, the Catholics don't have the monopoly on covering up abuse. The Protestants have been doing it as well. Recently a Jewish Rabbi was arrested for taking pictures of women while they were participating in their ritual bath.

I'm not a Catholic but I'm sick to death of everyone blasting one faith when abuse is ramped through all faiths. What about Jim and Tammie Faye? What about the preachers who jump up and down in their pulpits yelling about how God can only love you if you give them money to pay for the yacht. What about the preachers who would take a widow's last penny and lie to her guaranteeing her that she'll get financially wealthy for giving it? Didn't Jesus teach us that we should be taking care of the widows and orphans? The priests don't have a monopoly on abuse.....

Instead of tracking court cases.... wouldn't you do more to search the Bible for the meaning of forgiveness and compassion. If someone is an ex-catholic, perhaps their time would be better spent learning to forgive. Jesus forgave a man while He was on the cross. It's one of the last examples He gave for us to follow.

 

[PsyOps]

One of my most disappointing stories is Mike Warnke. He was hugely popular during the 80s as a Christian stand-up comic and for his book about his involvement in Satanism - 'The Satan Seller'. I read the book and it was very compelling as an insider's view into Satanism. He claimed he was a 'grand dragon' and ran his 'chapter' of the Church of Satan. He ran around the country with his comic routine, telling his story, and selling his book.

Then we found out the whole thing was made up; a complete lie. Mike Warnke was/is a non-denominational, charismatic 'Christian' (I quote Christian, because based on his lies to all those that listened to him, and he is still defiant to the evidence that his story is fabricated) and propagated one of the biggest lies within the Christian faith during that time.

Deception and wrong-doing isn't limited to one church. Individuals will be held accountable for their actions, not churches.

 

[b23hqb]

I know this is the case. I find this both odd and sad. Getting back to the addition of non-biblical text to the end though...why?

Are you meaning "for yours is the kingdom........glory for ever. Amen." thingy? I understand it was in some later found manuscripts. That's what it reads in all my my KJV. That ending may have been added later, but before the Bible was assembled.