CALVINISM IS SIMPLY THE GOSPEL BELIEVED

[Ronald Nolette]

Again, Unlike you I have faith in God.

So you can read souls! Or you are just lying to everyone hear and falsely accusing a brother.

I did not accuse. I showed proof..

Then show proof I am unsaved and have no faith in god or repent of your lying!

once again this conversation started when you said YOU could defend the 5 points of tulip with scripture.

we were never discussing my view.

And I have numerous times. And all you have done is say nnah-ah! But like others who hate the biblical five points fail to show Scripture that explicitly refutes them.

 

[Augustin56]

1. there never was apostolic succession. The supposed succession in th efirst three centuries was proven a forgery.

2. The entire church is a priesthood. The "ordained ministers" were never called priests but shepherds, bishops and elders.

3. Jesus instituted only 2 "sacraments" Baptism and the Lords Supper. The others were around in Judaism long before the church was born. Except confimation which supposedly took the place of the bar and bat mitsvahs

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. History is very clear on Apostolic Succession. All of your points are demonstrably false.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the Apostles. Catholic bishops worldwide are part of that lineage, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations, most of which do not even claim to have bishops.

To make sure the Apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

In the New Testament, we find “the laying on of hands” refers in the plainest of terms to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. St. Paul lays out some essential criteria for candidates for holy orders, followed by stern warnings concerning the grave responsibility that accompanies this august sacrament: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Then Paul warns against “be[ing] hasty in the laying on of hands” (5:22), meaning don’t ordain just anyone—you must be sure the ordinandi are truly prepared for ministry. Notice the use of the terms “laying on of hands.”

St. Paul had a special interest in Timothy because he had ordained him personally to the priesthood (probably to the bishopric). Notice again the language Paul uses in reminding young Timothy of the ongoing challenge of his office: “Rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6).

Thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that “the laying on of hands” refers to Holy Orders in the New Testament. But the question now is: how does this relate to apostolic succession?

To understand apostolic succession, we must understand the biblical concept of being sent. Look at John 20:21 as an example of this: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you”. The Greek word here for send is a form of apostello—a familiar-sounding term. Apostolos is the noun form of the same word. Its connotation is not sending in the sense of sending a letter. It has a specific meaning of “one sent with the authority of the one who sent him.” Thus, according to Jesus, His New Covenant ministers were not just “sent” in a generic sense; rather, they were “sent” by and with the authority of Christ.

Understanding this idea has ramifications regarding the infallibility of the Church, its juridical authority, and more. Think about it: if Christ’s ministers are “sent” with the authority of Christ, infallibility necessarily follows. Jesus did not teach mere opinions of what he thought Scripture might mean. He spoke the infallible word of God, and so must his ministers!

Jesus limited this infallible authority he gave to the apostles in both Matthew 16:18-19, when he communicated it to St. Peter and his successors, and in Matthew 18:15-18, when he communicated a similar authority to all the apostles and their successors in union with Peter and his successors. He limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (singular) when speaking to Peter and his successors. And he limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (plural) when speaking to all the Apostles.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the Apostles. Catholic bishops worldwide are part of that lineage, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations, most of which do not even claim to have bishops.

To make sure the Apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

No, He is simply teaching to Timothy to disciple other men who will disciple others and so on and son. Apostolic succession is not referred to in the Bible. It is a Roman Construct which was proven false when the donation of Constantine was proven a forgery.

Bishops are "Episkopoi" which simply means an overseer of a church as is shown in Titus. In modern terminology it is simply a pastor and not the over seer of many "parishes". Also Paul allowed them to be married and have only one wife- Something Romanism has banned.

1 Timothy 4

King James Version

​

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

I remember when it was a sin to eat meat of Fridays.

In the New Testament, we find “the laying on of hands” refers in the plainest of terms to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. St. Paul lays out some essential criteria for candidates for holy orders, followed by stern warnings concerning the grave responsibility that accompanies this august sacrament: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Also they must be teh husband of one wife. And yes Rome calls it holy orders, other churches call it ordaining!

Thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that “the laying on of hands” refers to Holy Orders in the New Testament. But the question now is: how does this relate to apostolic succession?

To understand apostolic succession, we must understand the biblical concept of being sent. Look at John 20:21 as an example of this: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you”. The Greek word here for send is a form of apostello—a familiar-sounding term. Apostolos is the noun form of the same word. Its connotation is not sending in the sense of sending a letter. It has a specific meaning of “one sent with the authority of the one who sent him.” Thus, according to Jesus, His New Covenant ministers were not just “sent” in a generic sense; rather, they were “sent” by and with the authority of Christ.

All believers have a certain level of authority. Pastors have the authority of the office of the pastor. Yes there has been a succession in that men of God have been ordained since Jesus first ordained the apostles, but as there was no Roman church prior to the fourth century it is not what the RCC teaches. there was a church in Rome but not the head church. That was Jerusalem first (with James the Lords brother as head) and then Antioch as the church moved more to gentile lands. So peter wasn't even the first pope!!!!!

Understanding this idea has ramifications regarding the infallibility of the Church, its juridical authority, and more. Think about it: if Christ’s ministers are “sent” with the authority of Christ, infallibility necessarily follows. Jesus did not teach mere opinions of what he thought Scripture might mean. He spoke the infallible word of God, and so must his ministers!

The church is not infallible. The Word of God is what is infallible and the church is infallible ONLY when it dictates from the uninterpreted Word of God.

Every sect of Christendom has many skeletons in its closet and Rome is no exception! It has erred enormously over the centuries.

Jesus limited this infallible authority he gave to the apostles in both Matthew 16:18-19, when he communicated it to St. Peter and his successors, and in Matthew 18:15-18, when he communicated a similar authority to all the apostles and their successors in union with Peter and his successors. He limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (singular) when speaking to Peter and his successors. And he limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (plural) when speaking to all the Apostles.

Well I know you follow the Roman line of what Jesus told Peter in Matt. 16 but that is a gross error. Peter is not the Rock upon which the church is built, but that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living god is the rock on which the church is built. Peter is "petros" or a pebble or small stone. Thaat Jesus is the Christ is the "Petra" or massive rock upon which the church is built.

And as for the keys? Keys open doors and it was the job of Peter as proven by the word of God that opened the door for the gospel to go to the Jews (Acts 2) then to the Samaritans (Acts8) then to the Gentiles and the utter most parts of the earth (Acts 10).

Peter never led the church nor was a pope in rome! Jerusalem first then Antioch were the center of the church and it wasn't until cconstantine that Rome became the center of the church.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Behold loves to snipe and throw out lots of opinion but rarely ever cites the Word of God, especially in the discussions on Calvinism! I am challenging him to be one who argues from the word and not hide from it.

Actually, I have seen his posts. and he posts the word all the time.

But it does not matter, My point stands, Your comment to him was rude and Arrogant. and sadly a typical response I see day after day from people who call themselves christian. On both sides of the argument

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Actually, I have seen his posts. and he posts the word all the time.

But it does not matter, My point stands, Your comment to him was rude and Arrogant. and sadly a typical response I see day after day from people who call themselves christian. On both sides of the argument

Not when he answers me and that is whatr I care about!

And your answers to me are all opinion without biblical evidence so far.

If you think my responses so rude and arrogant yo ucan report them if you wish. but I have little to no respect for those who sit on their pompous thrones and tell me I am wrong and fail to provide the biblical evidence to support their allegations. I do not read every post on the threads. I answer the ones addressed to me. So if trheir are no bible answers to seek to rebut the scriptures I post- Especially when I have dealt wioth that person over many threads, I consider it nothing more than just pompous pontifical bloviating and one seeking to highlight their own opinion.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Reformation ended up with those who left the Catholic Church losing Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, the heirarichal priesthood. That, in turn, resulted in losting five of the seven Sacraments instituted by Christ.

Christians are priests, but Scripture indicates that there is also a special, ministerial priesthood.

The Church agrees that, by baptism, Christians have a share in Christ’s priesthood (CCC 1141, 1268, 1546; cf. 1174, 1322). This is commonly referred to as “the common priesthood of all the faithful” (CCC 1535). However, certain members of the faithful are ordained to a greater participation in Christ’s priesthood by the sacrament of holy orders. This is known as the ministerial priesthood (CCC 1547). Christ—the source of the common and ministerial priesthoods—is our high priest (CCC 1544). The Church thus understands there to be a threefold structure: the common priesthood of all, the ministerial priesthood of the ordained, and the high priesthood of Christ.

This is what we see in the New Testament. The common priesthood is referred to in 1 Peter 2:9. The ministerial priesthood is referred to in Romans 15:16, where Paul speaks of how he is a minister of Christ “in the priestly service of the gospel of God.” The ministerial priesthood is also referred to in passages that speak of ordained Church leaders known as “elders” (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). Finally, the high priesthood of Christ is referred to in passages such as Hebrews 3:1, 4:14–15, 5:5, 6:20, and 9:11.

This was also the pattern in the Old Testament. Peter was quoting from the Septuagint version of Exodus 19:6, where God told the Israelites that, if they kept his covenant, they would be to him “a royal priesthood and a holy nation” (Greek, basileion hierateuma kai ethnos hagion). There was thus a common priesthood of the Israelites, but that did not stop God from also appointing a ministerial priesthood from the sons of Aaron (Exod. 28:1), with Aaron as the high priest (Ezra 7:5). Rather than undermining the idea of a ministerial priesthood, Peter’s citation of Exodus supports it by invoking for the Church the same priestly concepts that applied to Israel.

Did you ever see Dr. John Bergsma on Pints with Aquinas? He speaks about the priesthood. It was great. If I could find it, I'll send you the link.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Reformation ended up with those who left the Catholic Church losing Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, the heirarichal priesthood. That, in turn, resulted in losting five of the seven Sacraments instituted by Christ.

Christians are priests, but Scripture indicates that there is also a special, ministerial priesthood.

The Church agrees that, by baptism, Christians have a share in Christ’s priesthood (CCC 1141, 1268, 1546; cf. 1174, 1322). This is commonly referred to as “the common priesthood of all the faithful” (CCC 1535). However, certain members of the faithful are ordained to a greater participation in Christ’s priesthood by the sacrament of holy orders. This is known as the ministerial priesthood (CCC 1547). Christ—the source of the common and ministerial priesthoods—is our high priest (CCC 1544). The Church thus understands there to be a threefold structure: the common priesthood of all, the ministerial priesthood of the ordained, and the high priesthood of Christ.

This is what we see in the New Testament. The common priesthood is referred to in 1 Peter 2:9. The ministerial priesthood is referred to in Romans 15:16, where Paul speaks of how he is a minister of Christ “in the priestly service of the gospel of God.” The ministerial priesthood is also referred to in passages that speak of ordained Church leaders known as “elders” (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). Finally, the high priesthood of Christ is referred to in passages such as Hebrews 3:1, 4:14–15, 5:5, 6:20, and 9:11.

This was also the pattern in the Old Testament. Peter was quoting from the Septuagint version of Exodus 19:6, where God told the Israelites that, if they kept his covenant, they would be to him “a royal priesthood and a holy nation” (Greek, basileion hierateuma kai ethnos hagion). There was thus a common priesthood of the Israelites, but that did not stop God from also appointing a ministerial priesthood from the sons of Aaron (Exod. 28:1), with Aaron as the high priest (Ezra 7:5). Rather than undermining the idea of a ministerial priesthood, Peter’s citation of Exodus supports it by invoking for the Church the same priestly concepts that applied to Israel.

Found it.
Let's see if I could link on my phone..

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[GodsGrace]

@Augustin56

Found it.
Let's see if I could link on my phone..

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Augustin56]

Did you ever see Dr. John Bergsma on Pints with Aquinas? He speaks about the priesthood. It was great. If I could find it, I'll send you the link.

I've seen Dr. Bergsma before and he's great! Send me the link if you find it, please!
Thanks and God bless!

 

[Augustin56]

Found it.
Let's see if I could link on my phone..

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Thanks!

 

[GodsGrace]

Not when he answers me and that is whatr I care about!

And your answers to me are all opinion without biblical evidence so far.

If you think my responses so rude and arrogant yo ucan report them if you wish. but I have little to no respect for those who sit on their pompous thrones and tell me I am wrong and fail to provide the biblical evidence to support their allegations. I do not read every post on the threads. I answer the ones addressed to me. So if trheir are no bible answers to seek to rebut the scriptures I post- Especially when I have dealt wioth that person over many threads, I consider it nothing more than just pompous pontifical bloviating and one seeking to highlight their own opinion.

Just saw this while replying to another member.
Just want to say that you may or may not agree with @Eternally Grateful , who happens to be a mainline Christian,
knows his bible, and posts scripture all the time.

We as Christians should behave better than those that are not...
I've been insulted myself on this forum and it's rather disconcerting to think
that we're supposed to be brothers in Christ.

That's all I wanted to say.

 

[Logikos]

Calvinism is just Calvin's personal interpretation of Scripture.

So, I haven't read this entire thread and rather than doing so, I thought I'd take the statement quoted above as a good jumping off point. If what I say here has been hashed out elsewhere in this thread already, someone can just point it out to me and I'll respond accordingly.

While the statement quoted above isn't false, per se, it isn't really very accurate either. Calvin came up with very little of his doctrine. Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is really nothing more than a Reformed version of Augustinian doctrine. Calvin's theology proper is basically identical to Augustine's. The notion that God is ontologically immutable (i.e. utterly unchanging in anyway whatsoever) and all of the doctrines that derive from that including impassibility, divine simplicity, the classical understanding of the omni-doctrines, predestination, and the TULIP doctrines are all just Augustinian theology extruded through the Reformation die, if you'll permit the analogy.

The Reformation was not about completely rebuilding Christianity from the ground up. It was about about removing Roman doctrines such as Transubstantiation, Mary's Immaculate Conception, the "Assumption" of Mary, papal infallibility, Purgatory, the veneration of "saints", Indulgences, etc., but Luther was an Augustinian monk and didn't even come close to questioning Augustinian doctrine, never mind rejecting it. On the contrary, he, like the author of the opening post, foolishly believed them to be the gospel itself, which, of course is so laughably false that is doesn't really deserve a direct response. Anyone who believes such a thing isn't even a real Christian. They have no concept at all of what Christianity is even about. The audacity of implying that every Christian who reads the bible and understands it mean what it actually says has rejected the gospel if they DON'T believe God to be the arsonist who set all of houses on fire just so as to give himself an opportunity to save some of us! It's complete insanity.

Be that as it may, the point here is that to say that Calvinism is just Calvin's own personal interpretation of Scripture is to give John Calvin WAY more credit than he deserves. Which is not to say that his doctrine is anything to be proud of, but merely that Calvinism's genesis lies with Augustine of Hippo, not John Calvin. Indeed, even that it's quite right. It's actual genesis lies with Socrates, Aristotle and Plato; Greek philosophers that Augustine all but worshiped as a young man and who's teaching about the nature of God, Augustine imported into the church via his copious writings, not the least of which is "Confession" where he speaks at length about the immutability of God and predestination and all of that sort of thing.

 

[GISMYS_7]

YES!! Christ gave His Church the authority to teach and preach But not to change the. truth of His eternal living Word.

 

[Augustin56]

So, I haven't read this entire thread and rather than doing so, I thought I'd take the statement quoted above as a good jumping off point. If what I say here has been hashed out elsewhere in this thread already, someone can just point it out to me and I'll respond accordingly.

While the statement quoted above isn't false, per se, it isn't really very accurate either. Calvin came up with very little of his doctrine. Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is really nothing more than a Reformed version of Augustinian doctrine. Calvin's theology proper is basically identical to Augustine's. The notion that God is ontologically immutable (i.e. utterly unchanging in anyway whatsoever) and all of the doctrines that derive from that including impassibility, divine simplicity, the classical understanding of the omni-doctrines, predestination, and the TULIP doctrines are all just Augustinian theology extruded through the Reformation die, if you'll permit the analogy.

The Reformation was not about completely rebuilding Christianity from the ground up. It was about about removing Roman doctrines such as Transubstantiation, Mary's Immaculate Conception, the "Assumption" of Mary, papal infallibility, Purgatory, the veneration of "saints", Indulgences, etc., but Luther was an Augustinian monk and didn't even come close to questioning Augustinian doctrine, never mind rejecting it. On the contrary, he, like the author of the opening post, foolishly believed them to be the gospel itself, which, of course is so laughably false that is doesn't really deserve a direct response. Anyone who believes such a thing isn't even a real Christian. They have no concept at all of what Christianity is even about. The audacity of implying that every Christian who reads the bible and understands it mean what it actually says has rejected the gospel if they DON'T believe God to be the arsonist who set all of houses on fire just so as to give himself an opportunity to save some of us! It's complete insanity.

Be that as it may, the point here is that to say that Calvinism is just Calvin's own personal interpretation of Scripture is to give John Calvin WAY more credit than he deserves. Which is not to say that his doctrine is anything to be proud of, but merely that Calvinism's genesis lies with Augustine of Hippo, not John Calvin. Indeed, even that it's quite right. It's actual genesis lies with Socrates, Aristotle and Plato; Greek philosophers that Augustine all but worshiped as a young man and who's teaching about the nature of God, Augustine imported into the church via his copious writings, not the least of which is "Confession" where he speaks at length about the immutability of God and predestination and all of that sort of thing.

Are you familiar with the Principle of the Integral Good? This principle says that good comes from an integral cause and evil is from any defect from any defect whatsoever. So, if a religion (Calvinism, for example) contains one false doctrine, then it is a false religion. The Catholic Church, which is the original Christian religion, is the only religion that doesn’t contain any false doctrines whatsoever. It has the original deposit of faith given mankind by Christ. So, what does that mean? It means that all other religions cannot be a means to God, Who is truth itself. Why? Because false religions cannot be a means to truth or salvation. The example I like to use when teaching is as follows: Suppose you are an expert at wine, and you love wine, and I offer you a glass of the world's finest wine. Would you drink it? Of course! But, what if, before I handed it to you, I put in one small teapsoon of sewerage and mixed it up. Would you drink it then? No! Why? Because now it's just an expensive glass of sewerage.

 

[GodsGrace]

So, I haven't read this entire thread and rather than doing so, I thought I'd take the statement quoted above as a good jumping off point. If what I say here has been hashed out elsewhere in this thread already, someone can just point it out to me and I'll respond accordingly.

While the statement quoted above isn't false, per se, it isn't really very accurate either. Calvin came up with very little of his doctrine. Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is really nothing more than a Reformed version of Augustinian doctrine. Calvin's theology proper is basically identical to Augustine's. The notion that God is ontologically immutable (i.e. utterly unchanging in anyway whatsoever) and all of the doctrines that derive from that including impassibility, divine simplicity, the classical understanding of the omni-doctrines, predestination, and the TULIP doctrines are all just Augustinian theology extruded through the Reformation die, if you'll permit the analogy.

I haven't read through either, plus I don't know where you're headed with the above, but I'd like to make a statement too.

Luther began the reformation and he's the one who started the doctrines that would become known as Calvinism, since Calvin had a big effect on this belief system due to his importance in the town of Geneva. He was astute in his writings and sermons and, I'd say (IMO) that he was the person that most proliferated this belief system.

You can say that his beliefs were based on Augustine....100% true; he mentioned Augustine in many of his sermons and took his ideas from him.

But it's important to note that Augustine was the only ECF that spoke of predestination in the same sense that Calvin (and the others) did and that changed his belief on free will, which is one of the pivotal beliefs that CAUSE calvinisms doctrines.

Augustine also taught that Adam's sin is IMPUTED to mankind, and thus he also changed the reason for infant baptism.
The early church did not believe Adam's sin was imputed to man, but that man was born with its effects.

I'd also like to point out that Augustine had spent 10 years in the gnostic system of Manechaesm and he brought some of those beliefs with him.

I've forgotten a lot, but of the above I'm absolutely certain.

The Reformation was not about completely rebuilding Christianity from the ground up. It was about about removing Roman doctrines such as Transubstantiation, Mary's Immaculate Conception, the "Assumption" of Mary, papal infallibility,

This is incorrect.
Luther believed in transubstantiation.

The doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception was not pronounced until about 1870.
The doctrine of Mary's assumption was not pronounced until 1954.

So since I agree that the reformation became necessary, these were not the reasons for the Reformation.

Purgatory, the veneration of "saints", Indulgences, etc., but Luther was an Augustinian monk and didn't even come close to questioning Augustinian doctrine, never mind rejecting it. On the contrary, he, like the author of the opening post, foolishly believed them to be the gospel itself, which, of course is so laughably false that is doesn't really deserve a direct response. Anyone who believes such a thing isn't even a real Christian. They have no concept at all of what Christianity is even about. The audacity of implying that every Christian who reads the bible and understands it mean what it actually says has rejected the gospel if they DON'T believe God to be the arsonist who set all of houses on fire just so as to give himself an opportunity to save some of us! It's complete insanity.

Are you stating that Augustine made up all the above doctrines?
Are you stating that Luther's doctrines are laughable?
If so, I have to agree with you.

Be that as it may, the point here is that to say that Calvinism is just Calvin's own personal interpretation of Scripture is to give John Calvin WAY more credit than he deserves. Which is not to say that his doctrine is anything to be proud of, but merely that Calvinism's genesis lies with Augustine of Hippo, not John Calvin.

Correct, in the sense that I stated above.

Indeed, even that it's quite right. It's actual genesis lies with Socrates, Aristotle and Plato; Greek philosophers that Augustine all but worshiped as a young man and who's teaching about the nature of God, Augustine imported into the church via his copious writings, not the least of which is "Confession" where he speaks at length about the immutability of God and predestination and all of that sort of thing.

Agreed.
I think we agree.

I wanted to point out that some of your reasons for protesting against the CC did not include the ones I mentioned above.

As to the rest, Calvinism/Reformed faith is so far from what the NT teaches that I had started a thread on why it's not even biblical.
If the Calvinist God is the one I should worship...I do believe that would be quite impossible.

 

[GodsGrace]

Are you familiar with the Principle of the Integral Good? This principle says that good comes from an integral cause and evil is from any defect from any defect whatsoever. So, if a religion (Calvinism, for example) contains one false doctrine, then it is a false religion. The Catholic Church, which is the original Christian religion, is the only religion that doesn’t contain any false doctrines whatsoever. It has the original deposit of faith given mankind by Christ. So, what does that mean? It means that all other religions cannot be a means to God, Who is truth itself. Why? Because false religions cannot be a means to truth or salvation. The example I like to use when teaching is as follows: Suppose you are an expert at wine, and you love wine, and I offer you a glass of the world's finest wine. Would you drink it? Of course! But, what if, before I handed it to you, I put in one small teapsoon of sewerage and mixed it up. Would you drink it then? No! Why? Because now it's just an expensive glass of sewerage.

My goodness Augustine!
Even the CCC teaches that every religion has truth in it.
And I wouldn't go so far as to say, in your statement, that the CC has NO FALSE DOCTRINE....
Let's say that purgatory could be debated.

And believing that only Christians could be saved would be another topic...
but, just quick, how small of a God do we have anyway?

Have you read Romans 1:19-21 (I think).
What exactly do you think it means?

 

[GodsGrace]

YES!! Christ gave His Church the authority to teach and preach But not to change the. truth of His eternal living Word.

Ah.
But WHAT IS THE TRUTH??!!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Just saw this while replying to another member.
Just want to say that you may or may not agree with @Eternally Grateful , who happens to be a mainline Christian,
knows his bible, and posts scripture all the time.

We as Christians should behave better than those that are not...
I've been insulted myself on this forum and it's rather disconcerting to think
that we're supposed to be brothers in Christ.

That's all I wanted to say.

And we are to rebuke, and judge when brothers are in error to save them. And as James wrote, sometimes snatching them out of the fire! Even Paul gave us an example with the Galatians that at times the best learning tool is a good 2X4 up side the head!

 

[Augustin56]

My goodness Augustine!
Even the CCC teaches that every religion has truth in it.
And I wouldn't go so far as to say, in your statement, that the CC has NO FALSE DOCTRINE....
Let's say that purgatory could be debated.

And believing that only Christians could be saved would be another topic...
but, just quick, how small of a God do we have anyway?

Have you read Romans 1:19-21 (I think).
What exactly do you think it means?

Let me clarify a little bit here (provide more detail). First, I agree that all religions have some truth in them. Natural law explains how God designed mankind to operate. One of the features of mankind is that he was created to seek the highest good, which is God. And man has been seeking God even in the days of the cave man, albeit not very effectively until later. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are from Jesus Christ, and have remained intact. Jesus promised in Matt. 16:18 that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" when speaking of His Church. So, if Christ's Church ever taught even one false doctrine, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it and Christ's promise would have not been fulfilled.

The doctrine of Purgatory is very much true and in tact. If you would like to discuss what it is and where it comes from, I would be more than happy to do so.

The Catholic Church does not teach that only Christians are saved. CC 1260 says, "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved." It doesn't say they will be saved, but that they may be saved." There are those in the world who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church, i.e., they don't know through no fault of their own. And my point is that if they are saved, they are saved through the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Only Christ can save.

In the whole paragraph in Romans 1:18-32, Paul’s main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.

 

[GodsGrace]

Let me clarify a little bit here (provide more detail). First, I agree that all religions have some truth in them. Natural law explains how God designed mankind to operate. One of the features of mankind is that he was created to seek the highest good, which is God. And man has been seeking God even in the days of the cave man, albeit not very effectively until later. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are from Jesus Christ, and have remained intact. Jesus promised in Matt. 16:18 that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" when speaking of His Church. So, if Christ's Church ever taught even one false doctrine, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it and Christ's promise would have not been fulfilled.

That's something I would never state...that if only one doctrine is false, the gates of hell would prevail.
And what promise of Jesus would not have been fulfilled?
Maybe mankind was created to seek the highest good, God, but most do not seek God.
However, some have....even in the farthest of times and farthest of places, and some will always find God since He does not hide
Himself from His creation.

Daniel 2:22
He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.

Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.

The doctrine of Purgatory is very much true and in tact. If you would like to discuss what it is and where it comes from, I would be more than happy to do so.

Here?
Which verse or parable do you think proves purgatory?

The Catholic Church does not teach that only Christians are saved. CC 1260 says, "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved." It doesn't say they will be saved, but that they may be saved."

Here's 1260:
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." 63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

It states CAN BE SAVED.
CAN BE
CAN

In this instance CAN means to be able to, to be permitted.
We can know this because right after it states that he who does the will of God can be saved, it adds that SUCH PERSONS would have received the baptism of desire.

It is also, BTW, very obvious in languages other than English that it means TO BE ABLE TO, TO BE PERMITTED.

Italian
1260 « Cristo è morto per tutti e la vocazione ultima dell'uomo è effettivamente una sola, quella divina, perciò dobbiamo ritenere che lo Spirito Santo dia a tutti la possibilità di venire a contatto, nel modo che Dio conosce, col mistero pasquale ».59 Ogni uomo che, pur ignorando il Vangelo di Cristo e la sua Chiesa, cerca la verità e compie la volontà di Dio come la conosce, può essere salvato. È lecito supporre che tali persone avrebbero desiderato esplicitamente il Battesimo, se ne avessero conosciuta la necessità.

If it meant CAN in the sense you're speaking of it would have said.
Potrebbe essere salvato. (could possibly be saved)

Instead it says
Puo essere salvato (can be saved...can as in able to, permitted).

There are those in the world who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church, i.e., they don't know through no fault of their own. And my point is that if they are saved, they are saved through the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Only Christ can save.

This implies that a person can be saved ONLY through the CC.
This is not correct.
The CCC teaches that any person that is baptized can be saved.
And, dare I say that it is JESUS that saves....not the CC.

Extra Ecclesiam Nunca Salis referred to persons baptized OUTSIDE of the CC and is not valid when referring
to persons that are Christian, have been baptized, but belong to a different denomination.

I can't remember what the Mystical Body of Christ is so I have no comment.

In the whole paragraph in Romans 1:18-32, Paul’s main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.

Here's Romans 1:18-20
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Where does it mention the end of the world?
It's speaking about the creation of the world.

Where does it speak of misdirected piety?
It plainly states that God is evident to all men because His attributes, power, and divine nature have been seen and understood so that all men are without excuse.