A... this is the one thing you said that concerns me the most.



Put aside "private interpretations" and think about this for a minute... and open your Bible and read the references here and let me know what you think. One of the issues that I have always had with the Church is that many feel that they are unable to question the leadership...and that only leads to a corrupt bunch of leaders. YOU are the Church. YOU should be willing to stand up to the leaders of the Church... as you implored of me yesterday.. and make them accountable for their teachings as well as their actions. JMO.

The Bible teaches that it is Scripture (not papal authority) that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. The verse even says that even an angel from Heaven, if they teach things that are not scripturally based are doomed.

You asked if there was an attempt to have you switch to another church or to renounce your current faith. I will say, for me, emphatically "no." You do not need to leave the church in order to be a saved Christian. You have found your faith in God and you should be where He has called you to be. But please just remember that the leaders of your church... from the pope on down..are men and as such have made terrible mistakes. Put your faith in God and not the church. Again, JMO.

“I don’t wish to discuss religion with you at all for a number of reasons.”

Athanasius – you have the right to discuss or not discuss any subject you wish to discuss or ignore. That is your right, as it is the right of everyone.

You seem to want to seek to “divorce” discussion, i.e., about marriage, confession of sin, etc., from God and what God has to say about it. That is certainly your right if you choose that path, but as a believer yourself, I would assume that you also believe that those things are intimately connected to a belief in God as the “one who has the word of ‘right’ and ‘purpose’ for those things, or in “self” as an autonomous individual without God.

So the “logical” question would be “how do you ‘divorce’ God from the subject matter and keep the discussion purely theoretical or ‘humanistic’ in focus? Psychology is interesting as it pertains to relationships, even relevant, especially with reference to infidelity, but that is pretty much the focus of Marriage Builders as a method of ending or preventing affairs, and in building a loving marriage based upon meeting the needs of the spouse.

When you move the subject matter into areas of faith, you automatically bring God and His view into the discussion, not I.

This is precisely what you did on the previous thread to which you refer; Catholic Doctrines & Marital Happiness -- #2 -- Confession and Fog .

You tied Roman Catholic doctrines directly to the discussion, and now you make assumptions about my “motives” in posting and perhaps even direct attacks on my “sincerity” or my own “faith” in Jesus Christ. For those who have been around here for a while, it is no surprise to them what my position is. Some agree and some disagree, but they are all (hopefully) pretty clear about what I believe. So let me spend a minute addressing that for you in response to your questions that reveal you may be making “disrespectful judgments” of your own toward me, my beliefs, and my motivation for posting.




Many have preceded you in this view. Many do not want God and His purpose for marriage to “enter the picture.” But as a believer I have to admit to a little surprise in hearing this same sort of argument from you. You do believe that marriage is a covenant with God, don’t you? It is not merely some “animalistic” bonding of chance, convenience, and natural instinct that “evolved” over time, is it?

There have been many on this system who do have a faith in God and in the Covenant of Marriage in Christ who come with questions, doubts, fears, uncertainty, attacks on their faith, etc. who do appreciate that the infidelity problem is not “divorced” from God but is, in fact, an expression of sin and willful defiance against God and their “one flesh” marriage. They come, as I did and you cannot in your “singlehood,” in the smoking devastation that craters a marriage, and yes, even one’s faith in God, that adultery visits upon a marriage, and especially upon the Faithful Spouse (Betrayed Spouse). Are you arguing that it is “inappropriate” to building up marriages to involve God in the solution to the problem of infidelity in their marriage and their relationship with God?




Yes, Athanasius, if you hold to what was underlined, you are saved and justified before God. There are many who identify themselves as Roman Catholics who hold to the same belief.

However, that is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. One would think that if one is going to “identify” with a given “religion” then one would embrace ALL the teachings of that “religion.” To “call” oneself something is not necessarily the same thing as “being” what they claim to be. Many have left the Roman Catholic Church for that very reason. Claiming to be a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Jew, an Atheist, etc. conveys to others that you embrace the teachings, doctrines, and beliefs of that particular “religion.”



No. Conversion is up to God, not me. My only responsibility is to stand ready to answer the question, “Why do you believe what you believe” to inquiring minds and to stand ready to “defend” the gospel message when various “messages” are presented. This is precisely what Jesus was saying when He responded to do the devil, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4)

Responding is no different from what Jesus did in responding to the errors of the teachings of the Pharisees. It is not an “attempt to convert you.” It is addressing error in teaching that is “at odds” with the Scripture (the Word of God).




Neither. There are people within the Roman Catholic Church who believe as you stated in the piece I earlier underlined.

But your question also reveals a potential fundamental difference between the Roman Catholic faith and the biblical Christian faith.

There is no “losing” of one’s salvation if one is truly born again ("No one can snatch the out of my hand"). That is not the same thing as saying someone could “lose their faith” in a given religious doctrine of a given “Religion.” Being “skeptical” also does not equate to “losing one’s faith in Jesus.” Skepticism is more related to either pre-belief views concerning God and Jesus Christ or to a “baby in Christ” who has not yet proceeded along the path of “maturing in the faith” wherein those areas of “skepticism” or “doubt” or “confusion” or “lack of knowledge” have not yet been explored and addressed.

The Roman Catholic teaching, however, teaches that a believer CAN lose their salvation. That is the inherent teaching of the concept of “Mortal Sins,” and was, hence, the basis of my original question to you regarding the need for Confession to a Catholic Priest about adultery.




I have no desire to “detach” you from the Roman Catholic Church. You have stated your belief in your salvation and justification before God rests in Jesus, and in Jesus alone. But are also correct that as a believer, albeit a “young” one, the issues and topics you raised (i.e., Biblical exegesis, the relationship of faith and reason, the nature of texts and language itself, the history of Christianity and its dogmas, the typology of heresy) are things that you will need to address over time. They are fundamental to “maturing in the faith,” and I’m sure you would agree that only God’s position, as revealed to us in His Word, is the “right” position regardless of what “religious denomination” we choose to associate with. It may result in someone coming to the conclusion that they cannot in all good conscience continue in a religion that does not adhere to God’s clear teaching, but that is a personal decision for each person to make for themselves.


As for the questions you asked; “Are you willing to undertake the long, hard discussions necessary for me to become a Protestant? Do you have the time and the knowledge for it?” , I am willing to discuss the “difficult” as well as the “easy.” I will make the time available, over time and not to the exclusion of all of my other responsibilities, to discuss these things with anyone who is sincerely inquiring about them. As for the “knowledge for it,” I have more than some and less than others, but I always base it upon the Scripture and defer to Scripture anytime I might “feel” something that would conflict with God’s Word.

“Free Will” is just one of those “difficult issues” and is what is wrapped up tightly in Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, and Reformed thinking and doctrine with respect to how people are Justified by God. I will give you another post that touches on that very issue.




Of course I am concerned about possible damage to BS’s and WS’s on this board, regardless of their faith. I have “bowed out” of many threads when it became obvious, or was stated, that they had no interest in the biblical perspective on their situation. By the same token I have not “meekly run away” from threads that adamantly attacked God and the gospel message, not to change the mind of the poster or hurt potential readers, but to stand for the gospel against untruths that are presented as “gospel” (for example evolution vs. creation).

To put your argument into perspective, and to potentially answer your questions, let me ask you if you think Paul should have “kept quite” and not confronted Peter and the church in Jerusalem about the issue of “works” being added to faith as a requirement for justification? Certainly there might have been those within hearing of Paul’s arguments who could have been “damaged,” as you say, by Paul’s “calling into question” the requirement that “Gentile believers” must also be circumcised. Should Paul have remained silent and not spoken for God’s truth and allowed “error” to go “unchallenged” in love?



Athanasius, I will NEVER ask you to simply “trust me” simply because I might say something. I will ALWAYS defer to Scripture and encourage anyone to check all things against the Word of God. “Man,” all men including me, are NOT free from potential error. That also, in opposition to RCC doctrine, includes the Pope, both current and all previous Popes. When you say you will “trust the Catholic Church” my response would be simple a question. Will you trust the Catholic Church over the Word of God when they are “in conflict” with each other? In whom IS your trust, God or the Church? Consider the 7 churches in Revelation in this respect. The "lampstands" in that passage of Revelation seem to very clearly be the "leaders" of each of the 7 churches and not angelic beings.

There was no “Roman Catholic Church” in the beginning. But there was Jesus Christ and there was the Word of God, the Scriptures. Faith and standing before Holy God is NOT dependent upon any earthly “religion,” it is based solely upon Jesus Christ.



Yes, I think I do. But then you launched into a series of posts doing just that.


God bless.

Athansius – there is nothing at all “wrong” with trying to use human reason to try to understand God’s will for us in marriage. I agree that God’s will in this area is vital to and understanding of marriage as God intended it. I only question your “approach” when you try to go against your own herein stated premise and try to “divorce” the discussion from God and His purpose.



I agree, it is something that we could discuss.

Athanasius, you asked me some questions and since you have not been around long enough to know my positions on these questions, let me answer them for you.


“Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Him?”

Yes.


“Do you believe that He was both fully God and fully man?”

Yes.


“Do you believe He was the Divine Word made flesh?”

Yes.


“Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is actually one being with God the Father?”

Yes, along with the Holy Spirit. But since your question is not precisely clear let me state it this way…… ONE God, Three "persons" = the Trinity, the Triune God,

“Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?”

Yes. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three in one.



We both believe He died on the Cross but rose again. We both believe this event is the central event in human history and makes possible our salvation. We both believe He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. We both believe that human souls are immortal and will be in either bliss or agony. Do you believe that in the resurrection we will be reunited with our physical bodies, transformed and glorified?” [/i]

Yes.


“Were my assumptions right? Can you think of any other common ground?”

Yes. And Yes. From your previous statement of “Faith alone” there is likely to be common ground there too, unless you misspoke earlier.


God bless.

Athanasius, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, as am I and as is everyone else.

“Sincerity of belief” is not, and never has been, the issue. Anyone can be “sincerely wrong.”

You bring up the issue of Paul and try to “parse” his argument to Peter as “merely” being applicable to “reassuring his converts.” That argument doesn’t stand on it’s own merits. Paul could just as easily have stayed in the “Gentile lands” and raised up churches according to his teaching and left the Jewish churches to the “misguided” teaching of Peter and the Jerusalem church. He didn’t, and Peter and the church learned from Paul’s opposition to the “untruth” of works being needed.


“I think it leads fairly quickly to a belief that one's own salvation is assured and that leads to complete disregard for the Biblical moral law, as numerous BSs on this board attest.”

That it CAN lead to a disregard of biblical teaching is nothing new, not within Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, or in any “faith” that relies on the works of the individual to merit justification in God’s sight. That has been the “lot” of mankind since the beginning. It is one reason why we are told to love the Lord with all of our heart, mind and soul. It is engaging our total being in the process of learning and of becoming more “Christ-like” in our lives.

Paul addresses this very issue of abusing “Christian liberty,” and we could discuss that at length too.


“Being Biblical matters to me.”

If this is truly how you feel, then I am in agreement. If this is truly how you feel, then my next post to you may take on greater relevance to opinions you stated such as “I think the first principles of Protestantism (or from my vantage point, Roman Catholicism) are absurd, self-contradictory, annul themselves, promote pride, and make nonsense of the very idea of Revelation.

God bless.

Athanasius – the real question you are asking, and arguing from your own perspective, is “why do I believe what I believe?” That is consistent with the biblical directive to stand ready to give an answer to that question to anyone who asks, “why do you believe what you believe?”

So let me answer your question very briefly before getting into more “detailed” specifics.

Sola Fide – Faith Alone

Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone

Those are the fundamental beliefs (or concepts if you prefer) of the Christian faith, regardless of any “denomination.”

The fundamental difference between traditional Protestant religion and Roman Catholic religion is found in those two areas. They speak to the heart of doctrine, correct gospel or “another gospel.” The Roman Catholic position believes in Faith, but rejects “Alone.” The Protestant position is that Faith Alone is what justifies believers before God and that “good works” have no part in the “justifying.” Rather, “good works” come as a result of a changed nature that strives to be pleasing to God, a “natural” outflow of a “changed nature” that is worked by God, not by us.

These two issues have a direct bearing on the concept of “Justification” before God. Roman Catholics “hang their belief” in whole, or in large part, on James and his comments about faith and works. This is done in a misinterpretation and misunderstand of what James was trying to teach. In essence, James was addressing the idea that a mere profession of faith is “not enough” be a truly “born again” Christian. True faith is seen in(results in) the works that follow becoming a “new creation” by the act of God, not by the act of ourselves. In addition, they(RCC) “add” to that position a Semi-Pelagian position that Man is “capable” of “good works” independent of God that reach to the level of “self justification” before God. In short, they argue that we become justified, or attain justification (a purely forensic term), before God based on our own merit and efforts.

This justification is declared by God and is His judgment of believers. Where this “justification” comes from and why God considers a believer “justified” is at the heart of the difference between Roman Catholic teaching and reformed teaching (Protestant).

To summarize the key difference we can look at the key difference between the two views concerning how we are justified before the Lord.

Roman Catholic View ---- > Faith + Works ---- > Justification

Reformation View --------- > Faith ---- > Justification + Works


To quote from Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul, pages 167-138:
“James, far from denying sola fide, is showing that the faith that justifies is not a faith that is alone. His treatment does not vitiate either Paul’s or the Reformers’ doctrine, though indeed it deals a fatal blow to all forms of antinomianism.

In Romans Paul declares: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:27-28 NKJV).

The word therefore signifies that an apostolic conclusion is about to follow. Paul concludes unambiguously – that justification is by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Charles Hodge says of this: “If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther’s version, therefore, ‘allein durch den glauben,’ is fully justified by the context.

Hodge also notes that, though modern Roman Catholics protest Luther’s insertion of the word allein, Catholic translators before Luther had done the same: “So in the Nuremberg Bible (1843), ‘Nur durch den glauben.’ And the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538), ‘per sola fide.’””


God bless.

Praying on your behalf is a privelege. Thank you for asking.

By God's grace we shall meet before the throne of God through the imputation of Christ's holiness to us, resting in what He did for us and not on anything that we did to merit being justified by God.

God bless.

Ditto what MEDC said!

That's a relief.

Er, I have some things to do IRL so it will take a while before I respond to the rest of this.

Dear ForeverHers,

My doubts about your “good faith” were only about your good faith as an intellectual interlocutor, never about your Christian faith, your zeal for truth or your commitment to practicing charity. Now that you’re treating me with respect and discussing first principles as I requested, those doubts have gone away.

I want to clarify something. It seems to me that Sola Fides is not actually one of your first principles.

Rather, Sola Fides seems to be a conclusion that you have reached from studying the Holy Scripture, according to the first principle Sola Scriptura. You are presenting Biblically-based arguments for Sola Fides, and attacking Catholic Biblically-based arguments against it: that makes it a conclusion, not a principle.

A number of the other posters seem to concur with Sola Scriptura without necessarily being convinced of your rigorous version of Sola Fides.

Is it correct to say that you are arguing that the Bible, when read according to the principle Sola Scriptura, teaches Sola Fides?

I assume you would reject any argument from Tradition, the Consensus Patruum (the argument from the agreement of the Fathers of the Church, for the non-theological bystanders), the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Authority of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, etc., since none of those count, according to the principle Sola Scriptura.

But does the mere fact that the RCC considers such arguments while interpreting the Holy Scriptures make it unbiblical, in your eyes? In other words, do you accuse the RCC of being unbiblical solely because it is not teaching the doctrine of Sola Fides, which you claim is the content of the Biblical revelation, or do you also accuse it of being unbiblical because it does not read the Bible according to the principle Sola Scriptura?

Athanasius - I owe you an explanation. I am leaving the forums. You can read about the reasons if you care to that were posted on your other thread.

I owe you the courtesy of answering, even if it is briefly, your questions in your last post, so I will do that and then consider my participation at an end.




This is incorrect. Sola Fide is a key principle and a key defining difference between Roman Catholic and Reformed (Protestant, if you will) beliefs. It is the defining difference between the two and the basis of the Reformation inaugurated by then RCC priest Martin Luther.




Again I would have to disagree with your conclusion or your understanding on this issue. Sola Fide certain is a conclusion in the same vein that one could call a decision to surrender one's life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a "conclusion" based upon Scripture concerning Jesus.

But it is not a "conclusion" in the sense of "concluding," or making an opinion, about something that is not clearly revealed in Scripture (i.e., pre, mid, or post tribulation rapture). It is a conclusion reached as a surrender to what the Scripture clearly and unabiguously teaches, just as clearly teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. That's not something that our finite minds can really "get around," but it is nonetheless true because Scripture clearly states it. God requires, if you will, our surrender to Him, not necessarily our full understanding.

If I were to continue our discussion I would give you several Scripture references that make it clear that Faith Alone is what saves us and not anything at all that we do.

That would lead into an area that is fraught with disagreement and misunderstandings, but is also nonetheless vital to the issue of how we are Justified in God's sight and what we, as fallen sinners before we are saved, are even capable of doing because of that sin-nature.

Suffice it to say that Paul makes it very clear that ONLY faith is what saves. Jesus makes it clear that when we are saved, we are saved for all eternity because of HIS power, not our power or anything we can do. Nothing can snatch us out of His hand and we cannot lose our salvation.

That having been said, what we are talking about is growing in the knowledge and understanding of the truth, as it is revealed to us in the Scripture. We are NOT talking about someone losing their salvation, which is one of the teachings of the RCC that I obviously disagree with on biblical grounds, not personal opinion.



Naturally. I never said they didn't. But once again, it is relatively "unimportant" what I or anyone else may "sincerely believe" or "insincerely believe." What is important is what God actually teaches in Scripture, because the Word of God is how God has chosen to reveal Himself and His will to us.

Before I really took on the task of studying this issue of Free Will and how it applies to Faith Alone, I also leaned toward the idea that I "chose" God on my own. But even that sort of "choosing" begs the question that is at the heart of the "problem." If I "choose" God, on my own, without God first choosing me, then I have, in effect, performed a "work" that by itself is meritorious in the sight of God and becomes something that I can "boast about" because "I chose God!" The reality is that as an unsaved sinner I am/was incapable of choosing God by the very sin-nature I was born with. But to go further than this would require much more back-and-forth discussion that I no longer have available. I would suggest a couple of books for you to read, if you are interested in learning more about this. The first is called Willing to Believe, by R.C.Sproul. That would be a good starting point that really traces the history the struggle over the issue of Free Will and saving faith.

The second book is also by R.C. Sproul and it is called Faith Alone.

Neither of them are "quick reads" because they really prompt one to reflect and think about the issues.




That's almost a "chicken or the egg" sort of question. Let me answer it this way. If one does not believe that the Scripture IS the Word of God, inerrant and inspired in the original writings, then it would logically mean that anyone could "pick and choose" what appealed to them and what they wanted to dismiss. If one accepts the Word of God as the inerrant and inspired revelation of God, then what it contains and what it reveals IS the Word of God on the "matter" and it really doesn't matter a lot if I happen to personally "like it or not." God is Sovereign, not me and not any man.




Too big of an issue to answer briefly. So let me just answer it this way; insofaras they are consistant and in harmony with the Scripture I would have no problem with them. When they in "conflict" with Scripture, God trumps the opinions of Man.




When you include the word "soley," as in "do you accuse the RCC of being unbiblical solely because it is not teaching the doctrine of Sola Fides," you are "missing the point" by trying to limit the areas of disagreement to just one issue. Having said that, the issue of the differences in opinion of "Sola Fide" IS where the "pivotal branching" of the teachings of the churches divide. On the "one side" is faith alone, saved by the unmerited grace and mercy of God according to His good will. On the "other side" is faith plus the works of man, beginning with man choosing God without God choosing him and then continuing into being Justified by faith plus works or your salvation can be lost. Very big topics and much discussion required to air areas of confusion and question. But the books I recommended to you would do a much better job than I could of looking at both sides of the issue.

God bless and may God continue to illumine your mind with His understanding.

[Gulp]

You're already doing more than I dared hope for in my most wild presumption....

I'm truly humbled, MEDC.

Thank you.

(I figured your relationship with the Church was something like a BS who had had a D....but you're more like a BS who's WS won't promise NC....the lava makes a lot more sense now.)


Er, may I make a plug for my own liturgical preferences? Have you ever attended a traditional Mass? They threw out the traditional Mass in 1969 and banned it for twenty years...and it's still hard to find...but it is the way Western Catholics worshipped from at least Gregory the Great (i.e. 600 AD) until 1965. I really prefer it, personally.


Please pray for me!

I wish to clarify that the harsh things I said about Protestantism are intellectual critiques of a system of thought.

I believe that this system of thought is internally incoherent and often damaging to those who participate in it.

I certainly mean no disrespect or hostility towards individuals who are participating in this system of thought or living according to it.

On the contrary, I'm quite sure that millions of Protestants are better Christians and living the Gospel with more faith, hope, and charity than I am.

Well said. And yes, that is where the lava comes from. I would be so very proud of the Church if they saw the problem... recognized that action needed to be taken and made clear and concrete steps to rectify things. I would be so proud. I think it is just a matter of time. The leaders of the church are a stubborn bunch that need to be pulled along. I had posted that article about father Mac.. I believe with all my heart that if and when a man of his stature ascends to a leadership position in the Church, she will reach her true potential. Right now there is a flock in need of direction and an influx of spirit. That will only come from change and heart. YOU have that heart... it is obvious. Be willing to question everything and YOU will help bring about the change that will make your Church... your heart...such a wonderful place... worthy of being called a House of God.

Ant... I will once again thank you for your words. They are very kind. I will pray for you.

My first "return" to mass will be at the church where I have some demons to slay. God has made it clear to me that it is time to return there. I will keep your suggestion in mind though.

Prayers,

MEDC

MEDC,

I have a question about this whole catastrophe. Are most of the perpetuators and the concealing bishops in a tight age range? Between 50 and 70, especially between mid-50s and mid-60s?

ForeverHers,

I welcome your decision to withdraw from this discussion, which I do not feel will do anyone any good, and may harm some, and will certainly tempt me into all sorts of not-very-charitable thoughts, emotions, and statements.

If people wish to read Catholic or Protestant apologetics they can go to any bookstore in the country and pick up something about it.

I think the most Christ-like resolution of this situation is for us to agree to pray for one another without further personal communication.

If you do wish to resume this discussion, please do so on THIS thread only.

Athanasius – I will give you one more post (this one) out of courtesy and respect, and I will “restrict” my post to this thread as you requested, but I do not wish to “resume” any discussion. The sole purpose of even this last post is to provide you with some last information and to ask you to consider rereading your thread about Confession from beginning to end after you have let a few days or more pass. Perhaps you will see that I was not attempting to “threadjack” as others have accused, nor was I attempting to get you to abandon the RCC. I was attempting to speak to you as a brother in Christ, not as a member of any church that may, or may not, be founded in Scripture.


Tempers began to rise when you posted your feelings of anger, and others began to quickly jump on the bandwagon. As I told you, your declaration of your own personal faith being “in faith alone” is biblical and is all that is needed for anyone to be a Christian, regardless of what church or worship style in a given church they might happen to like or be more comfortable with.

I remain at a loss as to why you became so “outraged,” because I never called your faith in Jesus Christ into question. But, be that as it may, I am cannot control how someone feels about anything anymore than any BS can control what their WS feels. The feeling of anger may be justified or it may be unjustified, but allowing the emotions to control the responses is detrimental to all discussions, here or in a marriage.

So let me make a few closing comments, and then after 5 years on the system of trying to help others, though imperfectly at times, I think it best that I simply “go away.”





Okay. And my comments were equally said as “intellectual critiques of system of thought.” But I obviously don’t have the same right to speak it or discuss it, as several posters put it, including Pep’s interesting judgment of “rude rude rude.”

I understand that from your perspective “this (I assume you mean Protestant) system of of thought is internally incoherent and often damaging to those who participate in it.” Would it possible that you might grant me the same “belief” (or opinion) of the RCC official church positions on many areas to be equally “internally incoherent and often damaging to those who participate in it.?”

There are areas of disagreement, but the “authority” in all matters “Christian” is the Scripture, the Word of God, wouldn’t you agree? I suspect your answer would be “no,” only because you stated it clearly and definitively; “I am a convert to Catholicism so cannot ignore ANY of the Church's teachings although there are many I do not understand.”

If I misunderstood and you would say that the authority is the Scripture(which you also did, I believe) and not the “church leaders” when they might say something that is in conflict with the Scripture, then it would seem to be simple logic that your statement of “cannot” might be more appropriated phrased “will not”, as in a choice and not in a lack of capacity to exercise your God-given free will.



As MarriedForever stated, he does not believe in Sola Scriptura. He puts the Pope, when the Pope is speaking about the RCC, on the same level as Scripture, with the added emphasis of the Pope being infallible.

As MarriedForever put it; “This concept of sola scriptura is probably one of the most crucial ones to explain….because once you understand WHY we do not believe in sola scriptura, it’s much easier to see where we have gotten our “other” traditions…we can get more into it, but basically we don’t believe in sola scriptura because IT ISN’T SCRIPTURAL!!!! You will not find that concept ANYWHERE in the bible…..and so to then turn around and say that you “only” believe what’s in the bible, and nothing else, kind of goes against the whole concept of sola scriptura ….like, Scripture alone is the supreme authority in every principle of faith…in every belief that we have….EXCEPT in this one, since the bible never says a THING about sola scriptura!!!! Kind of confusing, isn’t it?”

That was his opinion, and I would disagree with his opinion in that the Scripture does truly teach that the Word of God (the Scripture) IS the authoritative Word of God. Jesus, for example did not use “his own interpretation”(“ex cathedra”) of Scripture(though of anyone HE certainly had the authority to write any “new” Scripture he might have wanted) when refuting the Devil, he quoted the Scripture as being authoritative, definitive, and final. “It is written…” But that’s too involved to get into in this last post, so I would simply leave you with a request you reconsider your “cannot” and read the thoughts of the Reformers (i.e. Martin Luther) and others on the issue of “Free Will” as it relates to salvation and justification before God. Learn about Pelagius and the RCC rejection of Pelagianism, but how the RCC embraces a “semi-Pelagian” view. The fact that the RCC does place the teaching of the Pope on a level of “perfection, infallibility, of the same level of inspiration as the Scripture” is what MarriedForever wrote about; “"ex cathedra" - that is, on Peter's throne, as the head of the Catholic Church....so, he is only infallible in MATTERS OF THE CHURCH.” It would seem logical that “matters of the church” also applies the doctrines of the church, but I guess I could be wrong.

To my knowledge there has only been one perfect man, one infallible man, and that was Jesus Christ. It is equally obvious that Peter himself was not infallible and not perfect in what he said and did. I previously gave you one example of that about Peter’s teaching , or “going along with the Jerusalem Church, that Gentile believers needed to be circumcised in order to truly become Christians. That he recanted that position is also equally clear. Peter’s position before Paul came to meet with church in Jerusalem WAS “on matters of the church,” and was not infallible. The NT Scripture was not yet written at this point. If the Pope truly “sits on the throne of Peter,” then it would seem possible that he, too, might be just like Peter and not infallible when what he says is in conflict with the now finalized Scripture. The Scripture is authoritative and not the men. None of us IS an apostle. That “role” was fulfilled in the beginning and that role ended with the death of John, in so far as I know he was the last living apostle to die.




I share your sentiment and that is exactly why I have chosen to end my participation in Marriage Builders.




Well if you feel that you were “challenged, slapped down, and ignored” by me, then please accept my apology. Perhaps some day when you have the time to reread the posts without the current emotional involvement you will see that I did try to engage you in conversation and discussion and did not try to slap you down and ignore you.





Though this was posted on your other thread, and I am not posting there per your request, I just wanted you to know that you will not have to worry, I will be posting no longer anywhere (other than perhaps a few “good byes” to some I’ve worked with for a while and then no more).

Athanasius, this was the premise and objective that you laid down for your other thread. When I participated in your objective, it didn’t take long for you to become angry for others to pile on the anger bandwagon. Here is what you gave as the purpose and intent of that thread:


“This is part of a series of threads that are more speculative than practical. They involve discussing some Christian and/or Catholic doctrines and the effect on marriage of believing those doctrines. I, a bachelor, seek to gain insight from the married.”

Now you have concluded; “I feel it impossible to get this help if ForeverHers continues to participate or if the other participants reply to him here.”


It IS your thread Athansius and you are entitled to do what you want with it and to request participation or to request someone to refrain from participating.

Far be it from me to make anything “impossible” for you.


May God grant you the wisdom you seek and the ability to know His will.

God bless and go in peace.

not true

I think this thread is the PERFECT place for you to dish whatever you think the Catholic Church has coming!

sincerely ~~~> [color:"red"] go for it FH[/color]

I see this as a boundary issue ... I want a safe place to discuss MY CATHOLIC MARRIAGE NEEDS without having to defend the church at the same time...

so I say to you FH, thanks for bringing your views HERE

Pep

Thank you.

May the grace of Our Lord guide you and protect you always.

Hi Pep,

Thanks for your support. It means a lot to me. You, too, BrambleRose.