DeoOmnisGloria.com

That inconsistency is the very reason wanted to toss the book of James out of the Canon. Especial since the only time in scripture faith and alone are used in the same sentence it is preceeded by not.

But all of this is just an aspect of Protestant tradition that tries to seperate itself from the mistaken belief that Catholic beleive they are justified by works.

The talks between Lutherans and Catholics came to the agreement that they both believe in grace alone.

I think you are rocking just fine, Jay. I was always amazed by the reasoning of faith alone or being saved once was all you needed. I would often challenge my protestant friends in high school saying, " I can accept Jesus into my heart and be saved once and for all and then live my life sinfully yet still go to heaven?" And their answer would be, "Well, you weren't really saved if you lived a sinful life after the fact." I had to laugh. Obviously, the two go hand in hand. Perhaps they dislike the notion of too much focus on works, like salvation is something we can earn or buy. I guess Grace will one day bring us all back to the truth whether we like it or not.

My relationship with my Father is always strongest when I experience his loving grace in my life, not when I am trying to meet his expectations. Not that I every give up, but His loving kindness (saved by grace) is my fondatiion. My Father has given me this blessed assurance and no doubt can take it away. It was what God has done for us that saves us not what we have done for God.

Donald,
You bring up two issues: sola fides (faith alone) and being permanently saved.

Sola fides is a big discussion and would require more room than I have here - I will address it in an article soon. The essential difference between the Catholic and protestant position is the nature of justification. Catholics view justification as a continuous process, whereas protestants see it as a one-time, permanent change. The key scripture for the protestant position is:

Romans 3:28. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

James 2:24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [I recommend reading 14-26 for a full understanding of James' thought]

Your other point is on the permanance of Salvation. Catholics believe that you can lose your salvation and the Bible clearly agrees. First, take a look at these verses:

1 Timothy 4:1. Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the Faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Corinthians 9:27. [Paul writing] But I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Hebrews 10:26-29. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses [Ten Commandments] dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnessess. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? [my emphasis]

Philippians 2:12. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Romans 11:22. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in His grace; otherwise, you too will be cut off.

All of the above verses point to the lack of permanant assurance we have in regards to our salvation. There are many, many other verses that clearly say we must finish the course. It is naive to believe that we can go to heaven without being Holy, as God is Holy.

Jay

I wonder how many times Jesus has to die before some believers finally get that it's not about them and what they do that gets them in heaven (we can do nothing of ourselves) but rather what Jesus has done for us. Our works are an extention of our acceptance of Christ (being Christ-like, doing good works as He did here on earth). We no longer live under the law. Jesus was the last priest; the final blood scarifice! He paid it all and there is nothing we can do of ourselves to redeem ourselves except believe.
Faith without works does not cause condemnation or loss of salvation - it just does not bring the glory of Christ into the watchful eye of others.
Worse than that, it does not bring glory to our Lord and Saviour.

Laurie,
Unfortunately the Bible clearly disagrees with you. Christ only died once, the Catholic Church teaches this, and yet we are able to participate in his sacrifice every Sunday. As Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" John 6:53. Many of his disciples had a problem with this and left because they couldn't handle his teaching (read on in John).

In terms of works, I would offer you the words of James: "But some one will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith . . . faith without works is dead." James 2:18-20. Those are pretty strong words from Jesus and from James supporting my position. One final verse from James: "Even the demons believe - and shudder." James 2:19. How do we know we're different than the demons? Our works are the difference. Faith working in love is the way to salvation.

Jay

can someone tell me which bible your quoteing
from,i'm looking in the new american catholic bible--- and the old king james version.
the verses you are saying are written diferent
in each one.

let me know which you are using.

thank you

faith and not works........ well we can't be justified by works because it is our duty as followers of Jesus to do greater works (healing the sick, raising the dead, prophesying), read John 14. now tell me how many people who are believers are going around doing this? the point is sound doctrine is one thing and doing what Jesus said to do is one thing. what a pastor of a church is doing is what he believes to be doing, wheter right or wrong. read Ezekiel 34, John 10 and Titus 1. we as Christians should stand together under one faith in one accord. as losng as we keep turning on each other we will never appear right to those who are still lost and satan is still scoring against the kingdom. Dr. Stanley will be there along with other denominational greats.............

Jay,

With all do respect, the Bible does not disagree with me. Your interpretations of the Bible are where the disagreements lie. I do not wish to dispute with you the Catholic view of “Transubstantiation” (by the way, I was raised Catholic but no longer practicing) however, you used John 6:53 to defend your position so please allow me to do the same.
“Truly, truly I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”. Did Jesus mean eat Him literally? Of course not! First of all, Jesus was physically present with the disciples when He said this. Obviously He meant His words figuratively. True, many of the disciples had a problem with what He was saying because, remember Gen.9:4; Lev. 3:17 teaches the drinking of blood is forbidden. I’m sure the disciples were baffled that Jesus would go against the Fathers commandments. Peter, in Acts 10:14 admits he had never eaten anything “unholy and unclean”. This further proves the point. Had he literally ingested blood he would have never made this statement.
There are many times in the Bible the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Ex. When He talked about destroying “this temple” and He would raise it up in three days. They believed He was talking about actually rebuilding with bricks. Jesus Himself admits He speaks figuratively (John 16:25) and in parables (Matthew 13:13).
He refers to Himself as “the light of the world”(John 8:12); “I am the door” (John 10:9); and “the true vine” (John 15:1).
My point - in John 6 Jesus has just fed the 5,000 (Physically). Now, beginning in verse 27, He is talking about feeding the spiritually hungry. Jesus uses bread and wine as a symbol of His flesh and blood. His flesh being nailed to the cross and His blood shed so that forgiveness and salvation are possible. It is this act that Jesus wants us to remember.
His directions at the Lord’s Supper were “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19).

On the subject of works, let me just give a few verses:
John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 5:1,2; John 6:47; Romans 6:23; Rev.21:6;
Ephesians 2:8,9

As I stated in my last posting – we can do nothing of ourselves to save ourselves.
It is a gift from God made possible through Jesus Christ His Son.

Finally, you quoted James 2:19 as a defense for the necessity of works. Let me quote the foot note for verses 18 and 19 listed in the New King James –Life Application Study Bible which best explains my point of view. “At first glance, this verse seems to contradict Romans 3:28, “man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” Deeper investigation, however, shows that the teachings of James and Paul are not at odds. While it is true that our good works can never earn salvation, true faith always results in a changed life and good works. Paul speaks against those who try to be saved by works instead of true faith; James speaks against those who confuse mere intellectual assent with true faith. After all, even demons know who Jesus is, but they don’t obey him. True faith involves a commitment of your whole self to God”.

In reference to the Eucharist, you completely miss the entire context of Sacred Scripture and the meaning of John 6.

First, in Exodus what sealed the Passover for the Jews was the sacrificing of the lamb, Jesus, in fulfilling the covenant God made with Israel, is often throughout the Gospels, the epistles, and in Revelation referred to as the Lamb of God. He is sacrificed on the Cross for the remission of our sins. In Exodus, the lamb is sacrificed so that the angel of death might pass over (thus the name Passover) each house. In fulfilling the covenant Jesus is sacrificed that death passes over us. The final act of the Passover, the validifying act, was for the Israelites to eat the Lamb, not lamb cookies or something that just represented the lamb, but the lamb itself. Christ does the same.

Why would He allow followers to leave simply over a misunderstanding of what He said in John 6, if all He had said was meant symbolically? Why didn't He turn to His disciples and say "Come on guys you know I was simply speaking symbolically", instead He looks at them and asks, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67).

Why would Jesus in the upper room say when breaking the bread, "Take, eat; this is my body" (Mt 26:26) and then, "he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:27-28) Here Christ states clearly that what He is offering them to drink is the same "Blood" that will be poured out on the Cross. Why in the world would Jesus have even used this language if it was merely a symbol? Rhetorically it would make no sense. Also notice that none of the Apostles objected to Him saying this. Why? Because they had been there when He had said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Here I will quote David Currie again, "Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must "eat his flesh". He repeats this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated "to chew". This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. There is no hint in the text itself of the faith-versus-action dichotomy that the Evangelical tries to introduce. Belief accompanies obedience in actually eating. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal. This is the only place in the Gospels where disciples of Jesus left him over a doctrinal issue. This is also the first time we hear of Judas doubting the wisdom of his master. There is a Church that accepts Jesus' teaching here as truth, but I knew it was not any of the Evangelical churches" (Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic; pgs. 38-39).

If your claim is true then St. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 23-32 would not make any sense: "Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats the bread and drinks the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." This would be a harsh, and unjust statement if the "bread and cup" where but a mere symbol.

In regards to the context of John 6. The first part of this chapter is the multiplication of the loaves. The miracle completely support the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist for it shows God can do things that are physically impossible (taking 5 loaves and 2 fish and feeding over 5000 people), that He has total dominion of nature and matter, so if He says that He will feed us His Body and Blood, then He can, whether we can understand how this is done or not. You state that it would be impossible, but you have no problem accepting that He can create the entire world out of nothing and multiple 5 loaves and 2 fish into enough to feed 5,000 people, but you claim He cannot give us His Body and Blood to eat (even though He states clearly that He will do exactly that). This is a contradiction of reasoning on your part.

All of the Early Fathers supported the belief in the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist.

So, here I have provided you with the Biblical foundation for the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. It is supported by the history of Christianity as well.

I would like to recommend a book for you to read Laurie, since you are a fallen away Catholic. It is entitled "The Lamb Supper" by Dr. Scott Hahn. It provide an excellent explaination, based on both the Old and New Testament, on the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. You owe it to yourself to at least read this book.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe

Thank you for your input.

Again I must say the interpretation is where the problem lies. Your whole explanation of the Eucharist does not give anymore support to the already understood interpretation of the Catholic faith. And that’s what it is – a Catholic interpretation. It does not mean however, you are completely correct.

You say I have a contradiction of reasoning in reference to the power of Almighty God. This is simply not true. I did not say it was impossible for Jesus to literally change wine into His blood or bread into His body, I said, this was not what non- Catholics believe He meant at the Lord’s Supper. Please do not confuse my words. This is what I understand it to mean along with millions of others.
He was the last blood offering, the last sacrificial Lamb, the last High Priest and we are to remember that as we receive communion. He asks us to remember. He bore the sins of the world (an unimaginably painful experience for the Son of God who could not sin). He was separated on the cross from His Father because of our sins (God could not look upon His Son). He paid the price, He knew He was going to, and He did it willingly. How much the Father loves us to send His only begotten Son (John 3:16). This is what Jesus wanted us to remember – His body and blood shed for you and for me.

It was the shedding of lamb’s blood (not the drinking of it) that spared the Jews at Passover and it was the shedding of the Lambs blood that saves us from condemnation, not the literal ingestion of blood but the shedding of it. When we drink the cup it is in remembrance of Christ’s blood being shed on the cross.

He and He alone has paid the price for our sins and paved a way for us to stand before His Father – clean.

Praise His Holy Name

Laurie,
You're wrong about the Old Testament: those who did not consume the Lamb, were not protected. You should go back and look at that.

Remember, Laurie, we are supposed to do what God wants, not what we want. The Old Testament curse upon ate humans: you were cut off from society. That's what God wants, us to be cut off from the familial sin that is passed down.

The Catholic Church is doing what God wanted. How can you explain the exhortations condemning those who eat the flesh or drink the blood unworthily? If it's just symbolic, then these passages are nonsense. You really have to throw out a lot of the Bible to get around some of the clearly Catholic teachings.

In terms of works (you asked earlier), Catholics teach that faith in Jesus is not saving faith unless it results in good works. Works and faith are intrinsically unseparable. As James writes, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (James 2:14,17). This is very clear. Remember, "Even the demons believe" - they have faith that Jesus is the savior and yet they are not saved. Paul even wrote in Romans 2:13, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are justified, but the doers of the law." Paul also writes about the "obedience of faith" multiple times in Romans - how should that be understood? Note that even protestants require you to do a work: you must accept. This is required for your salvation, would you agree?

Remember, you have only your personal interpretation of verses to help you. Catholics have the church, which Paul calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and Jesus says "the powers of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). For 1,500 years everyone taught that works are inseparable from faith, just as James taught. Then suddenly, Martin Luther completely changes his mind about faith and works. Conveniently, the King of England needed a divorce and so he elevated a revolting priest, who formed a new religion. And you believe that this religion formed in revolt and divorce, more accurately understands the Bible than the Church founded and headed by Christ? Titus 3:10.

I would be interested in the story of how you left the Church. In my experience most who leave did not know much about the Bible or what the Church teaches when they left. Would you agree or disagree?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
the believers are the church and we have God's words on how we are to live and the Holy Spirit for our interpretor.
The Catholics have their institute and man made doctrines that form their interpretations. You can argue this point as much as you like but it does not change the facts.
I have met many who have moved from the Catholic religion because of these false teachings.
Try removing these rituals and man made doctrines and see what you come up with - you may be surprised.
By the way, why is it that when you ask a Catholic if they are a Christian they say no, they are Catholic??

Laurie,
If Jesus intended for the following generations to have only the Bible as their guide, wouldn’t He have written part of it or at least put it together when he was here? Instead, He founded a Church and named a leader. What does that tell you? It tells you that Jesus intended for us to have a Church that lead us to God. Throughout history there has always been a Church that represents God’s interests on earth, why would that be different now?

But you argue that the Holy Spirit guides you in interpretation. Then why are their 20,000 different protestant denominations all interpreting things differently? Jesus prayed that we would be “one” as the Trinity is one (John 17:20-21). How are the protestant denominations living out this prayer? They are not.

Let’s just take this passage:

Acts 8:29-30. Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

A question: if you’re right, why did Jesus found a Church? No one can argue whether He did or not, He clearly said, “You are Peter [means ‘rock,’ he renamed Peter ‘Rock’] and on this Rock I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Please explain how your church, founded 1,500 years later, exemplifies Christ’s’ intention.

Remember, the Bible tells us the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). How do you explain this? All of the writers around the time the Bible was written speak of the Catholic church and of the mass, etc. The historical, Biblical, and practical evidence is clear: Martin Luther is the one who invented new teachings. He had to remove books from the Bible to get around Purgatory (He also desperately wanted to remove James from the Bible, but was talked out of it).

The “man-made doctrines” you speak of are found in the Bible. Jesus said, “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” He was pretty clear there – you might have trouble explaining to Him how you misinterpreted that. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven that “whatever you [Peter] bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you [Peter] loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

Look around: the Catholic Church is one of the few churches growing in the U.S. In total, the protestant churches are shrinking. Protestants are also moving closer and closer to a system where each church teaches something completely different and yet you still try and say the Holy Spirit guides your decisions. If the Holy Spirit was individually guiding you, you would be Catholic!

Protestant are very skeptical to “rituals” and yet, Jesus continually followed rituals while on earth (ex. the Last Supper). There are ‘false’ rituals to be sure, but that doesn’t mean every ritual is false. In fact, God has always used rituals throughout history. Look through the Old Testament, it is pure ritual. Why would God throw out all ritual? He wouldn’t, He used them in the Old Testament because of their effectiveness. Don’t be so quick to condemn rituals that are not false.

By the way, perhaps when you were Catholic you would respond to the question “Are you Christian” with that answer, but no knowledgeable Catholic would. We’re not only Christian; we’re the only Christians with the fullness of Truth.

I also recommend you read this article and this article. The Holy Spirit is leading you home to the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Your first statement doesn't really even make sense.

Instead of going round and round in circles with you I'm sure we can agree on the core issues of Christianity.

God created man; man falls
Immediately God announces, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”.
(This is the promise of a Saviour, born of a virgin. He shall defeat the enemy)
Throughout the Old Testament blood sacrifices must be made for the atonement of sin
New Testament – Jesus is born to be the last sacrificial Lamb, the final blood offering. Now we no longer live under the law. Jesus paid it all.
He was the last High priest!
John 3 tell us God has sent His Son, so that our sins may be forgiven if we only believe. He sent His Son not to condemn the world but rather that the world, through Him, might be saved.
He does ask us to partake in assembly, communion and baptism
His greatest commandment is restated – Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.
He sent the Holy Spirit to be with us – to teach and guide us
He will return one day for His people – the church (the body of Christ)
He is the Head, we, the believers (the church) are His body (this is not denominational)

I’m sure if I stated anything else outside of this list there would be much controversy – you may even feel you could argue with what I’ve said. However, regardless of what denomination you are – or even non-denominational as I am – there are fundamental facts we can not dispute. Everything else is questionable.

As far as being drawn back to the Catholic faith – I don’t think so.
God likes to show us, on occasion, where we have come from so that we can appreciate where we are and what He has done for us. By opening this web-site God has done exactly that. I am thankful for my deep relationship with Him and the way He continually shows Himself, His love and mercy to me. Enough said.

Nothing like Christians arguing about what is and what is not the truth. All of you sound like the rest of the world, falling all over yourselves to fight over your meanings of understanding. Flexing your doctrinal knowledge and pounding your truth into one another! Do you not find it confusing as to why GOD allows each of you to interpet his verses and meaning differently than the other?

I would find it far more interesting to ask each of you to explain why GOD allows you to see things differently.
I think I know the answer I will get......The small differences do not matter because the major theme of GOD and his meaning is still being presented. Right?

John,
Do you really think God intends for us to be divided and to see things differently? He doesn't. Jesus prayed "that they might be one" as the Trinity is one (John 17:21). God fully intends for us to be united in His Church.

Protestants often argue that there is no Church formed by Jesus, but Matthew 16:18 clearly shows Jesus creating a Church that "the gates of Hell will not stand up against it." We have an obligation to answer those who ask, to bring others closer to Christ through His Church.

Jay

Laurie,
Basically we are discussing justification. You are clearly excluding the value of works in your notes above, but works are necessary. More is required for salvation than simply believing. For example:

Matt 5:20. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven.

John 3:16-18. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

John 3:36. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him

Faith and works are inseparable. C.S. Lewis once commented that trying to emphasize one or the other is like trying to argue that one blade of the scissors does all of the cutting.

Catholics also believe salvation is a lifelong process, rather than one simple act. We must, as Paul writes, "work out [our] salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). We also believe that salvation may be lost, a good example is Paul worrying that "lest after preaching to others I myself [Paul] should be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Also you bring up "law." Remember, Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). In Romans, Paul writes "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31). We must follow the law, it is clear.

There are differences in our understandings of the Bible. You follow the teachings of your local church, whereas I follow the teachings of the church Jesus himself founded. Ultimately our differences lie in two beliefs which protestants adhere to: sola scriptura (the Bible alone) and sola fide (by Faith alone). I think the Bible clearly teaches that both are in error.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Let me say it another way. There will NEVER be unity within the body of Christ (Christian churches) as long as sin is in the world. Sin divides us because we are human and we choose to disobey. We "choose" to interpet and corrupt GODS word in our own way. We tickle our ears with whatever we choose to believe, we then wrap his word around that interpetation and then become too prideful to let it go.
Your Catholic crusades of the 11th century and subsequent Inquisitions to eliminate infidels and ultimately ANY non-catholic christians would be a great example of man failing GOD while believing they were performing his will.
If you would put down your "catholic" bible supplements long enough to research your true past, you will find how "absolute" Catholic power corrupted, raped and killed in his name. You had that power before.....why would we trust YOU with it again?

John

Let me say one more thing.

If you think I support just the Protestant perspective, you are wrong.

Money-begging, whoremongering and true deception resides deep in many of those churches and denominations.

We are either ALL going to heaven because of his infinite mercy. Or, the list of those going is shorter than even you or I are willing to believe.

John,
That sounds like a cop-out. As we note throughout this blog, God started a church. A church which is now divided because Martin Luther and his followers chose "to interpret and corrupt God's word in [their] own way" as you put it. The fact that people have sinned is not a valid reason for you to ignore the Church Christ himself founded. You must search for Truth and, as the Bible says, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

It is not Catholics who have added to Scripture, but protestants, who reject parts of Scripture while adding words to Scripture and forcing doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fides upon it, even though Scripture does not teach these doctrines.

John, the Catholic Church is headed by Christ, you wouldn't be trusting "us" with "power," but trusting in God and His Word. Catholics don't simply follow any teaching as protestants are want to do, we have the pillar of Truth to guide us. We stand not on sinking sand, but on the Rock of Jesus (Matt 16:18). Again, the fact that men have sinned in the name of God is not reason to reject God's Church.

Jay

Interesting, John. I read your last post after submitting mine.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from - are you simply a theist? One who feels it is impossible to know, understand, or serve God, so you simply hope? I would be interested in your personal beliefs.

It sounds like you do believe in God, but do you believe in the Bible? I think God was pretty clear in His Word that we have some responsibility to Him; greater than simply hoping that we won't go to hell.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Fine. Then it is my cop-out. I choose to live believing this. It simplifies things for me, I don't have to justify a single Church or any other denominations. You on the other hand have quite a task ahead of you.

Have Christ bring unity to the Christian churches Jay. If the faith of a mustard seed was all it takes for one person, then this should be quite easy for the Catholic Church and their millions of true believers. Just make it so......and please don't spend millions of years making it happen. Even evoluntionist can prove the frog to prince theory with that much time.

Now what was that it the true church was trying do centuries ago? I believe it was to bring true Christendom to the world. Or in other words....one church. If the catholic church is "headed" by Christ as you say, and anything proposed by the that church is loosed in heaven....then the offenses that occured during the Crusdaes and Inquisitions are actually Christ ordained.

Correct?

IF not.....explain how the "True Church" interpeted this to be Christ's will without misinterpeting his word.

And if you misinterpeted his will then, why not now?

As far as what I believe, thats just funny......

I am a nobody.

But I do follow one rule that I found most helpful.....

I don't walk across the street, even if the flashing sign says "walk", unless I look both ways. What about you?

Ah, one last thing.

You said I should not ignore the church Christ ordained just because people have sinned. I assume you mean the Catholic Church. If "it" failed once, how do I know it will not fail again?

How do I know the Catholic Church is not mis-leading the masses again right now? Believing it is doing GODS will.

Unless of course I "hope" it is not.

John,
First and foremost, I don't have to "justify a single church" as you state. God created His Church and He continues to lead it - your problem is really with God, not me.

Disunity among the churches is the result of free will and our ability to sin. Some have chosen to revolt against God's church and form a new religion that they like better - one that fits their personal preferences and doesn't demand as much in the way of holiness. It's much easier to simply "ask Jesus into your heart" than it is to actually work towards holiness as the Catholic Church requires. God could, at any time, bring unity among all the churches, not just the Christian churches, but of course He would be destroying our free will in the process.

Within the realm of free will, one person can also commit sin. But I challenge you to show me one instance in which the Catholic Church issued a decree that was sinful or against God's wishes. Your understanding of the Crusades and Inquisition seems a little shallow - I'm guessing you've read religious propaganda on them rather than historical data, which isn't biased. The True Church (as you correctly note) does not make mistakes on faith and morals. Period. They have not and they will not, since they are led by God. Popes have died while in route to change important Church teaching - God will take the life of someone who attempts to pervert His Church. We don't trust in humans, who are weak, but in God who has promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against His Church.

Ultimately, it sounds like you believe in the Church of John. You value your personal reason and decisions above that of God's will. I understand now why you so desperately want to believe that all will be saved. Unfortunately, the Bible is very clear on this - many will not be. As you say, probably many more than you or I could believe. Your faith in human reason is shortsighted - instead have faith in God and the Church He created. We know the Catholic Church is not misleading right now (or ever) because we trust in God to make sure of it.

Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

This is going nowhere as it should. You believe that the "Holy Church" is protected by GOD and no person can introduce their own influence over its principle doctrine.

Correct?

You have to believe this, it is your solid ground. It is the basis by which you manage the rest of your life. If the Church (Moral and faith theology) is not completely Holy (supernaturely GOD protected) then you have based your faith and salvation on doctrine of fallible men. And that would be scary, wouldn't it?

As far as one edict or decree.....

The Spanish Inquisition was a decree after the earlier decrees by Pope Sixtus IV. This decree is openly a mandate to find and end the heretical actions of Jews that claimed to be Christian converts (because the Church they be). These Jews apparently were lying when they said they converted to Christianity, but secretly held on to Judaism. The primary Inquisitor a domincan monk (look up his name yourself) put these false christians to death.

The earlier decree had somewhat the same results.

Are you saying that this edict is Holy? From GOD? If not, why didn't GOD put that pope to death. As you claim happens.

You say my knowledge of the Inquisitions is shallow, but you cannot really tell can you? You say I have read only propaganda. Maybe Jay, but maybe not. Maybe your knowlwdge of the Iquisitions come from only the Catholic perspective.....how would either of us know.

For me, I like you. For your devotion to his service. You have just dedicated yourself to trusting an institution (I know, directed by GOD) for your faith and ultimate direction. Its OK, because my only point in this whole matter is this, GOD uses many forms to deliver his message.

What I believe:

Christ is the Messiah
Our Saviour

Period

Tell everyone about him Jay and stop worrying about why some believe in ETERNAL SECURITY and justifying why you don't.......who cares.

For Protestants, the same is true. Stop ramming your beliefs in ETERNAL SECURITY down the throats of others......Does GOD care?

Believing or not in "Once saved, always saved" is really not relevant, we should all be working toward global salvation till we die. If we work toward this, worrying about whether we have worked hard enough to get to heaven will be mute.

When we get to heaven and we look at the one who sacrificed his life for ours, I am sure we will not even ask the questions of correct theology.

John

What would this be without one of my P.S moments.

At the end your last statement:

We know the Catholic Church is not misleading right now (or ever) because we trust in GOD to make sure of it.

Thats called "hope" brother. I have that same "hope", that GOD helps me to make the right decisions. Just as you do.......So what seperates us Jay? Our pride, our need to be right.

We both are fighting the good fight, striving as many christians do to serve our Lord. Some out of fear of Hell, Some out of love. Either way serving him and getting closer everyday to the truth.

I really do you like you, but I like most everyone. GOD appreciates your service to him, it is all that we can do given his sacrifice.

John

John,

I think one question you need to ask yourself is the following:

"Is there such a thing as objective truth?"

As Catholics, Jay and I answer this question with an emphatic "yes". Our beliefs, as Catholics, have been articulated in the two creeds that we hold to; 1) the Apostles' Creed and 2) the Nicene Creed. I have posted both here:

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day He rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God,
the Father Almighty.
From thence He shall come
to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right
hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken throught the Prophets.
We believe in one holy
catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection
of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

These two prayers summarize the fundamental beliefs of the Catholic Church. Note they are concise and objective. We have focus and light.
Saying that you have a particular version of faith...unique to you isn't faith at all...it is relativism. You've articulated what you believe to fit your needs and wants, it completely leaves out the will of God.

God came to save us from our sins and to guide us throughout the ages until He returns. He established the Church to instruct and protect, in matters of faith and morals, the Body of Christ (Matthew 16:18-19), the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). And not subjective truth, I might add, but "objective truth", for the Word of God never speaks subjectively.

Your allegations that the Catholic Church is responsible for the unfortunate results of the Crusades and/or the Inquistion are likewise subjective here.

The Crusades had one goal - to protect the places made scared by our Savior's sojourn and suffering. I challenge you to show me one Church document stating otherwise. If certain men involved in the Crusades did things that were not "Christian" I don't see how you can pin this on the Catholic Church. That would be like blaming God for any and all evil that occurs in this world since He was the one who created it in the first place. It just isn't logical.

In reference to the Inquisition, I will quote the following article:

THE INQUISITION written by Fr. William G. Most This topic is a favorite for attacking the Church. We need to remember two things:

1) Actions are not the same as teachings. The fact that the Church had some abuses is clear. But as on slavery, the Church very early condemned it, repeated it twice more. Yet even churchmen had slaves. So did George Washington. This does not mean the teaching of the Church changed: only laxity on all sides....

2)The abuses were much less than most people think. For a good account see Warren Carroll, The Glory of Christendom (part of a seven volume series—the data below is from his work) on the Inquisition... Further all governments of Europe around this period severely punished heresy. In England, the offender, often a Catholic priest who had merely said Mass, was hanged, drawn and quartered while still alive.

In France and Spain especially, the Cathar heretics were a danger not just to the Church, but to the state, and to all. In 1229 a council at Toulouse required that everyone in Languedoc, where most of the Cathars were, to take an oath and renew it every other year, to remain a good Catholic, and to denounce heretics. But Cardinal Frangipani heard testimony from a former Cathar, William of Solier, who said that to make such names public would endanger the lives of the informants. Out of this grew the Inquisition, established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233 to be staffed by Dominicans. The Cathars then were as dangerous as terrorists today, and brought fear, cruelty, bloodshed and war wherever they had sufficient numbers. In southern France it took the full armed power of the King of France to overcome them.

But then they went underground. Persons accused by the Inquisition were not allowed to know the accusers, to protect the accusers—this sort of thing happens in protection of witnesses in U. S. courts today. But the person arrested was to make a list of his personal enemies and none of their testimony would be used against him. What modern court allows such a thing? Torture was used, but quite infrequent, and not lasting in its effects. In the 50 years of the operation there were no more than 5000 executions, which was small in comparison to the total executed for other crimes in the same period. Some Inquisitors did abuse their power, but they were promptly and strongly curbed by Pope Gregory IX. In 1242 the Cathars murdered ten of the Inquisitors.

As to the Spanish episode, the Turks in 1480 attacked the south Italian city of Otranto. 12, 000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The sacred book of Islam does call for killing all "infidels" (The Koran says: When ye encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them, and bind them in bonds. . . ."—cited from B. Palmer, Understanding the Islamic Explosion, Horizon Books, 1980, p. 36). The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two. So Queen Isabel sent a fleet to Italy. In September of 1480, when it was clear the Turks might do the same to any coastal city, Isabel established the Inquisition. It dealt with the special problem of those who pretended to become Christian, but were not really converted, and might open the gates of the city to the Turks.

Torture was used only occasionally and it was the government that inflicted that and death, after the Inquisition turned them over. The Inquisition had no authority over practicing Jews and Moslems, only over professed Christians suspected of being fakes. After the appointment of Tomas de Torquemada as Inquisitor General in 1483 its tribunals were so fair that many preferred to have it hear their cases rather than the regular courts. Again, those questioned could not see their accusers, but could make a list of their enemies, and all testimony from them was discarded.

We must remember again that every government in Europe punished treason and heresy by painful death. Yes, the Inqusition is to be blamed for some things, but not as badly as the legend says.

There is evil in the world and men often fall into sin. The actions of humanity are a result of free will and cannot be blamed on any church. On this blog we haven't found fault with any particular action of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or any other denomination, though there are historical proofs of terrible things being done by all these religions. What we do call into question are their fundamental beliefs.

The facts of history are the results of the actions of humanity. The doctrines of the Church were given to us by God for the good of humanity. If humanity submits to God's will the world would be a better a place, a holy place, but unfortunately that is not the case because, in exercising free will, humanity has chosen not always to obey God.

Action is not doctrine. The doctrines of Catholicism have been upheld down through the ages and always will be until our Savior Jesus Christ returns.

I apologize for the length of this comment, but I felt it was important.

In Christ,
Joe

John,
I keep making this point, but you seem to miss it. "Hope" is when you hope in yourself. I don't "hope" that the Church is infallible. I have faith in God that it is. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus himself founded a Church and instituted teachings such as the Eucharist. Theology is the study of God, I think few would argue that ignorance is the way to heaven.

I don't do this blog because of my "need to be right" or "pride" though that may be your motivation. I do this because God calls us to preach to others. For over 20 years I was a protestant and steeped in the beliefs of sola scriptura and sola fides. It was only over years of study that I realized that neither are Biblical. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches Catholicism.

I personally see the devastating effects that teaching "eternal security" can have on people. My family has members clearly not following God and yet they believe they were saved in the past so nothing matters - they believe they are going to heaven, though most would have some concerns. It's important because these misguided teachings destroy lives and lead people away from God, not to Him.

As a metaphor, imagine our obligation in life is to swim from one coast to another. It is possible but difficult. The Catholic Church, however, is a boat God built to enable us to cross safely. If I see someone in the water swimming, should I say "Good job, keep going!" in encouragement? Or should I say, "Would you prefer to get on the boat?" I think the answer is clear. The Catholic Church offers us the sacraments, which ease our way to heaven and provide strength for the journey. As I work out my salvation in fear and trembling, I hope this blog helps others to work out theirs as well. That's why I do this, not out of pride, which is a sin.

Do you believe that the Bible is a divine gift to us on earth? Are its words inspired by God? If so, then we should do all possible to follow Scripture in order that we may be saved. Would you agree?

God bless,
Jay

Joe, Trust me. I know why you believe what you do about the Catholic Church. I am quite familiar with it.

Both you and Jay have now successfully labeled what I believe and nutshelled it. I, apparently have my own "subjective" doctrine. But I have refrained from really telling you what I believe in. For a reason, I knew we would be here not long after I posted my first query.

I knew I would be labeled, tagged and catergorized....without telling you anything about me. That is our nature when we don't understand something but feel challenged. It puts things in perspective for us when we can define it and place in in either the black box or white box. Trust me, I do it too.

But that perceptive power you have derives from a system of belief that is ingrained in you. You are conditioned (like me) to react and analyze things in a certain way. We process using the system we have been taught from. If it does not makes sense we add faith to make it fit.

Joe, GOD is truth and that is all. Simplify him and what he wants from us. Christ did, he challenged the "truth" of the old system of ritual and laws so to bring in his truth.

In your last statements concerning men, sin and how we corrupt the earth, you have only said what I have said all along. We are sinful and therefore things we touch we corrupt.

You propose you are the only one with GODs truth, yet you agree we corrupt. That is a bold statement.

I have ONLY said, I don't specifically believe Catholics or Protestants have a lock on the truth. but that Christ uses our IMPERFECTION to work his PERFECT will!

So lets get down to what is the truth....we are commissioned to save the world and serve him.

John

John,

A couple questions:

1) How do you "know" anything about Jesus to begin with?

2)How do you intend to "save the world and serve Jesus" if you haven't any "uncorrupted" guidance as to how this can be carried out?

I have answered this above as a Catholic, but I'm interested in how someone who refuses to be "labeled" would answer these questions...

In Christ,
Joe

I guess now, we are where we should be.

First, I am not refusing to be labled....only that I expected it. We all wear the label of something.

Your first question (1):

My knowledge of Christ is derived from the bible (many versions and editions)and from corruptable men. Having influences from both Roman Catholic and Protestant. My father was a Roman Catholic and my mother a Protestant.

Your second question (2):

I expect to carry out his will by following his central theme (both Catholic and Protestant). Witness to those who do not know him, that he is the risen Messiah. I can find that central theme in the Catholic, Baptist, Church of Christ, Church of GOD, Lutheran, Methodist, Prespertyrian or Moravian churches. Christ can be found where that truth lives. Even among the imperfection of each, his perfect will is weaved.

I am allowed (by Christ) as it is written to test that which is said to be true. If I am not clear upon the answer, I do not have to accept unclarity by faith that it means something. But instead wait for a clearer answer, if it ever comes. He may choose not to clarify it.

Joe, babies die in sweltering cars.....even you cannot answer why GOD allows that baby to suffer for hours. We can only assume.......because he has yet to clarify it to anyone.

But I can assume and from my past experiences, I may think that GOD is allowing this world to run a course that is influenced by sin. Because of sin in it, all of us....including children are subject to the uncertainty and results that go with it. I do not believe it is GODs will that a child die that way, only that a mistake was made by a fallible person and as a result......suffering occurred. I "think" it grieves GOD that suffering (any type) occurs.

The same is true for Churches, mistakes are made and as a result suffering occurs (Crusades, Inquisitions, Jonestown, David Koresh...etc.) It is up to us to question authority and only follow that which we understand. If it is not clear, seek it until you die. But always stay focused on the truth, which is Christ and his salvation.

Everything else is "subjectable".

If a Church is asking me to follow it implicitly, by faith that what it is doing or saying is true. I have a right (by Christ) to question that authority until I am clear. Not by faith believe what the Church is doing...is right.

I, by faith except him. I have never seen him, nor audibly been spoken to. His Holy Spirit has impressed upon me that he is the truth and confirmed it in my soul. My church is a good one, but not perfect. It probably makes many mistakes, even in the area of doctrine. But the central truth is taught there....Christ risen and resurrected, Mans sinful state and his redemption in our Lord.
In our church we are given the mandate to preach his name to all that will hear and bring them to Christ. Some will say (on both sides) that GOD has confirmed that their church is the right one. Whatever, I choose to question until I die. Confirm when I can.

When I see him, I think I will not worry anymore about these things.

I have answered this as a Christian.

By the way, you sound sincere about serving him. The body of Christ is fortunate to have yourself, Jay, Laurie and others like you to serve him.

John,

Thank you for clarifying things for all of us. Thank you also for your honesty. I understand all the things you are saying. I have been meaning to write an article on suffering, focusing on those unexplainable sufferings. For now I will say that suffering has been given salvific value in the cross of Christ.

The labeling as you have called it is important, Christians have died martyrs' deaths since the Church was founded for bearing the name of a Christian, specifically Catholic in the early Church as identified by several of the Early Church Fathers. But names aren't enough...we must live our Faith.

I hope that this blog will assist you in your walk with Christ. I will finish with these two thoughts and I ask you to ponder them and sincerely pray about them.

Did Jesus Christ intend to found a Church? And if so, how would that Church go about worshipping God?

I'll be back on the blog tomorrow night...hope to find you here as well.

In Christ,
Joe

Thanks Joe,

I wanted also wanted to get clarity for myself and probably for others as well.

If I do not believe the Catholic church is the one true church established by Christ and I never join her, what happens to me when I die? Looking for a direct answer please. Thanks Joe,

John,
It is possible to get to heaven outside of the channel God provided (the Church and her Sacraments), but it is very difficult. I believe you would have a tough time claiming ignorance, especially after the numerous Scripture passages we quoted which clearly teach that God did establish a Church.

My question: How can you ignore Matthew, 1 Timothy and the others and persist in believing that God did not establish a Church? I think he was quite clear.

Jay

Thanks Jay,

Not claiming ignorance. Like I said before, I am quite aware of the Catholic beliefs. Just wanted to hear someone say it.

I assume you mean Matt 16 vs 18-19. Quite a couple verses indeed. Cannot take any authority away from that.

Where does it say that same authority is handed to a single successor? Or that, only a sinlge successor would have that same authority. I imagine the Pope has been granted the same heaven/earth bounding power as Peter, and that not all the sheep have that same authority. Correct?

John,

The Church has never definitely stated that any one specific person has gone to hell for not being a member of the Catholic Church. The one point the Church has remained firm on has been the necessity of baptism. Rather than post the complete detail of the Catholic teaching on this here, I am writing an article on it. Please reference the homepage later tonight, I should have it up by then.

Is there "salvation outside the Catholic Church"? Of course, as discussed in other articles on this site, even for those who "through no fault of their own" have not heard of Jesus Christ, thus never being baptized.

Baptism is the gateway onto that "narrow path" that leads to heaven. Each must tread that path faithfully.

St. Paul is clear on this:

...that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection of the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Philippians 3:10-14

John, I think there is another way of looking at this. If, through the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ has made available to us channels of grace that we need (the Seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confession, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick), why wouldn't one want to be Catholic? All Christians share in at least two of the Sacraments; Baptism and Matrimony. The sharing of Baptism is what unites non-Catholic Christians with Catholics in a separated way, thus the reason for the name "separated brethren".

I believe that all of us should seek to fulfill God's will the way God intended. The Church was established by Jesus Christ to assist us in "obtaining the prize" of salvation.

In Christ,
Joe

P.S.

For the record, I know Christ established a church on earth.

If someone could clarify the single authority successor question, I would appreciate it.
Please include where you derive it.

Thanks again,

John

Sorry Joe, Saw your post after my last one.

The seven sacramants, Are these also listed somewhere...biblically as being needed?

I guess you saw my previous request as well. I am looking for the authoritive scripture that supports handing down to a "single" person the power Christ mentions in Matt 16 18-19.

Thanks Joe,

John

I tell you what, forget the scaraments request. We will be arguing instead of contemplating. I think the original question of salvation without the "true Church" was what I was looking for.

Now that we have that.

I will go back to my first question? Where is this singular authority of Papal Power succession mentioned in scripture?

Secondly, Why was there no succession for three centuries?

Hey guys,
I'm just wondering why John 3:16 through 18 clearly states how we get to heaven and have eternal life yet some believe because they have lots of verses it must not be the true way.
If this were not true - would it even be in the Bible? Nope!
Some verses you kinda read into them but others are flat out statements that can not be misunderstood.
And about Baptism, Jesus was in His thirties when he was baptized. He also came on his own to be baptized- that tells me something. He made His own decision. He was old enough to do so.
He, as we all, should be past the age of reason when we publically profess our faith.
And I guess you know what's coming . . . .
No,I don't believe it will keep me out of heaven if I don't get baptized - why - because John 3:16 tells me so. I believe you should do it - as I have - as a profession of faith.
In Him,
Laurie

Laurie,
Are you reading my comments? You say, "If this were not true - would it even be in the Bible? Nope!" and yet you ignore all of the teachings on the Church and the Sacraments throughout the Bible.

In terms of Baptism, remember Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." In terms of infant baptism, can you point out where the Bible says infants shouldn't be or can't be Baptized? I can point out verses where entire families were Baptized after the father had a conversion (Acts 16:5, 33, 18:8, and 1 Cor 1:16) - according to your philosophy none of these families had small children and everyone believed all at once. Remember that Baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance into the church and circumcision was clearly given to children.

Also Peter, the first pope, wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21). All of this is in the Bible.

I think our differences lie in interpretation. If I interpret a verse in a way that is contrary to another verse, I change my interpretation, rather than ignore the other verses.

So when you get a chance, let me know where the Bible condemns infant Baptism, because I can show where Jesus cautioned "Let the little children come to Me."

God bless,
Jay

Joe, Jay,

Looking for the scriptural references to where "after Peter" that another would inherit his Papal power. Since he was the first Pope, who was the second and when?

Thanks

John,
Sorry for the delay. We're all juggling families, work, and school, so we're sometimes kept away. I know Joseph is working on a Baptism article, so I'll get to work on a more detailed exposition of apostolic succession, but here's a start.

To begin, start with Acts 1:15-26. In this passage, Peter speaks of the "office" of Judas (the traitor) and how it must be filled. So they cast lots and choose Matthias to fill it. The logical question is: if they are going to fill Judas' office, wouldn't they continue filling the office of the other disciples, who aren't traitors? The answer is yes and this group has become the college of Cardinals today. Act also demostrates the apostles appointing other priests and deacons to help as the Church grew, which is how the Cardinals increased in number.

There are some other points to make on this subject, but I'll write a full post in the next day or so and link to it here.

Sorry again for the delay.

God bless,
Jay

Thank you Jay.

I will wait for your post.

John

Ah, forgot to add,

When was the 2nd Pope installed?

I'm amazed at your arrogance Jay. You seem to forget you believe what an organized religion believes. I have had many different religious influences. However, it was not until I removed myself from these institutions, and began my owm personal study, that I came to "truly" know our Lord and Savior. Neither you Jay, nor Joe could ever begin to dispute what the Lord has done in my life since then.
Once I removed all the distractors, such as praying to saints and Mary, which by the way falls under the category of idolatry, and began to do my own study, the Holy Spirit opened my mind to what I believe to be the truth.
My wish for the two of you would be to open up a little and do your own thinking on the subject. You are right - God's word is clear, but the question is "through whose eyes".
I would much rather believe in the teachings of the Holy Spirit than someone who can not decide if we can eat meat on friday or not this year.

Laurie,

I am astonished that you would attempt to call Jay arrogant...

You continually fault us for standing by the only Christian church that dates back to Christ, that both biblically and historically can support its beliefs. That has been the reason for so many goods in both western and eastern civilization, i.e. hospitals, universities, soup kitchens, etc. All were originally started by the Catholic Church. Go to the public library and do your homework. Not to mention all the graces that you been given in your life. Christ founded the Church and gave the "mere men" who led it authority on earth and in heaven that is a biblical and historical fact (Matthew 16:18-19). This is supported by the Early Church Fathers and down through the ages. Again, go to a library and do your homework.

I don't doubt that God has worked in your life but you have minimized religion to strictly an emotional, sensational experience, not on the truths of the Faith that have been handed down throughout the ages. The Bible is clearly not the only way that we can know and experience God. Look at all the Christians in third world countries that can't even read! How are they able to know God, and learn about Jesus? By what others tell them? Even if others read them the Bible, how are they to know that what they are being read is the truth? Clearly Jesus had other ideas as to how we are to know Him and all that He has revealed to us. You need to think about these things and pray about them. You have given up the "fullness of truth" for an emotional experience and you wouldn't be here posting on this blog if the thought of this didn't haunt you, even if it is in your subconscious.

Jay and I have studied Scripture, the writing of the Early Church Fathers, history, and even Protestantism itself thoroughly. You forget that Jay was a Southern Baptist for most of his life. We have studied the beliefs of the founders of Protestantism and found them all wanting. We have tackled just about every issue and have always found the teachings of the Catholic Church to be true.

I will continue to pray for you that Christ, in His mercy, will lead you home. For His Will, His prayer is that we His followers be one as He is one with the Father (John 17:21).

In Christ,
Joe

Laurie,
Arrogance would be if I assumed I could interpret the Bible without the Church founded by Christ. I understand that I need the guidance of God, who speaks through the Church. The Bible clearly agrees with me.

I would guess that the Holy Spirit is leading you back into His Church.

God bless,
Jay

Joe,

You have misinterpreted what I’ve said and again avoided major points I was trying to make.
I do not find fault with Christ’s Church, which may include you personally. I do however, find much fault with the Catholic Church and the fact that the organization claims to be the one and only true church. I have done my homework, more than I wish to share with you now, and am in no way convinced that this is true. Jesus is the head of the Church (and I don’t believe Him to have been a Catholic since the Catholic Church was not formed until several hundred years later – a fact I’m sure you will dispute). He was the last High priest – therefore, I do not believe in the authority of the Pope. We are to bow to no one or put our faith in man. And that’s all they are men, appointed by man. The apostles were individuals commissioned by the Living God to go and preach the Word and yet even Peter had to be corrected by Paul. Man is fallible. But the Bible is not! (I Tim. 3:16)
We are the body of that church and that includes all believers of every denomination. Are we talking Christianity or Religion? There is a huge difference. Our doctrinal belief falls under religion, which falls under denomination. Where do we draw the line and step into Christianity?
My original reasons for entering into this blog was to find out why you were passing judgement on Charles Stanley. I think I understand now.

Laurie
Ps. Your “conditions” placed on getting to heaven and spending eternity with God show that you guys have missed the boat. God’s grace is sufficient. You minimize what Jesus has done on the cross by adding things we need to do – as if His death wasn’t enough – or, better yet, as if we had the power to do so. My original statement still stands – how many times must He die before you get it?

And that's exactly what I believe you're doing. Interpreting the Bible outside the church of Christ. That's my point exactly

Ok, I am done. I am giving my last two cents worth on this blog...then taking a vacation.

I agree with Laurie on this point, the interpetation of the bible should be an individual experience aided by the confirmation of others (church). The church should not bear the sole responsibility of bible interpetation nor HAVE the final say.

That is scary......going back to Inquisitions, Crusades and poisoned cool-aid!!!

Jay and Joe, You believe what you believe because "they" tell you what is right and wrong, now go off and defend it! That is to EASY and as educated as you both seem you should know better! Even I would defend her if "they" said my soul was in dire straits if I did not! You both seem quite sure of yourself in that your "Church" has it right and that GOD speaks only through it. Wow, have we learned nothing the past few centuries? Sounds like you want to interpet certain things but ultimately you let the "Church" have the final say. That is "still" amazing to me!

Why would Christ (who was baptized) allow the theif to enter heaven without being baptized. Could not have Christ pulled the theif off the cross and had him baptized prior to dying.....yet you say without it we will not enter heaven! But he allows it in certain situations?

Listen.....We can trust him with our souls, he did die for it! In think we owe him that. I can assume that dying for it as an unblemished sacrifice means a "perfect" work". "It is finished"

Laurie, surely you can see why Catholics would look at Protestants and laugh. Our own interpetations of the bible are scattered all over creation. Most are sincere a honest, others are just lying through their teeth. But Protestants are not helping themselves by allowing Swaggert, Hinn, Crouch, Dollar and countless others continue to pervert his holy word!

Protestants don't even get along well with each other. The Church of Christ, Church of GOD folk would not be caught dead in a Baptist church. Baptist would not worship in the enviroment of Pentecostal praise! So why would we get along with the Catholics!!!!!!!!!! They are as arrogant as we are!

I say we are all wrong to an extent. But in Christ even our going astray is forgiven by his mercy. How many times has he destroyed men with judgement because of their going astray? Why not now? Becasue Christ paid for it all.

I will say this again, only the commission of spreading his good news should be our concern. I am quite confident I will see in heaven:

Catholics
Protestants
Jews
and others

Will not see in heaven:

Contradictions
Theology
Denominations
Disagreements

John and Laurie,
I think it's important that we look at the difference between our views: you feel there is no legitimate church founded by Christ but the Holy Spirit is leading each of us to interpret the Bible as it applies to us. Is this correct?

We believe that their is a Church, founded by Christ and lead by Him. That we can trust this Church because God himself promised that the gates of hell shall not stand up against it.

The difference between our arguments is that the Bible supports ours. I can point to where Matthew clearly depicts Jesus founding His Church. I can show you that Peter was the Pope. I can show Apostolic Succession Biblically. And I can prove that Sola Scriptura is not Biblical.

You trust completely in Sola Scriptura, but every protestant who has argued this doctrine on our site has ultimately admitted that the Bible doesn't teach it. The Church isn't some horrible communist regime. It's led by Christ and designed to help us get to heaven. If we don't trust the Church God founded, how can we claim to trust God? How can we claim to have faith? We cannot.

In terms of specific arguments, Laurie you quote 1 Timothy 3:16. I'm not sure why, but the verse before that does say that the Church is the pillar of Truth, so you're getting closer.

John, you seem very worried about the Church interpreting the Bible. And yet, you follow many of the Church's interpretations from the doctrine of the Trinity through worship on Sunday (the Bible clearly states in the Old Testament that we are to worship on Saturday). The Church isn't out there to corrupt God's Word, but to protect it. It prevents the type of misunderstandings that we have here by clearing up confusions. Don't be afraid of it - Jesus is the one in charge. By the way, the "poisoned cool-aid" was a protestant pastor at a protestant church, and he was just interpreting the Bible as he felt the Holy Spirit led him.

God bless,
Jay

To Everyone:

This post has over 50 comments, which is when we typically close them. So I will close the post. However, we can continue dialogue on specific subjects, just choose below:

• Mary and the Bible
  
• Apostolic Succession
  
• The Pope and the Bible
  
• General issues with the Church
  
• Sola Scriptura: The Bible Alone
  
• The Virginity of Mary
  
• Call No Man Father
  

Just click to any of the above and add your comments.

God bless,
Jay