wanting everyone's opinion...

[epistemaniac]

(goldy;65869)
Ken,So you are going to go off of some guy's book to prove the Catholic Church wrong? Do you think Jesus just passed out Bibles to the disciples after He ascended to Heaven? How were matters of faith and morals settled in...... say the year 77 AD? Which came first, the Church or the Bible? Did you ever stop to think about how Christianity began?
further, you are deeply confused as to what the early church was like, and it was not like the Roman Catholic church of today. Ask yourself why it took until the Council of Trent for the Roman Catholic Church to speak definitely on the gospel itself. The reason is, until Trent, there were some in the church who believed and taught that salvation was in Christ alone. Rome had to issue formal anathemas in order to formalize their own version of the gospel, and eliminate all others within the church with the threat of anathemas. There were indeed oral traditions taught in the early church, until the bible was formalized we relied on the immediate followers of the disciples. But we have the word of God canonized now because we cannot trust our faith to word of mouth oral traditions. If that was the case, we would not have the bible today, now would we? Further, on this point, Rome says that there are oral traditions that have come down through the church to this day, please, list them for me. If you can't then there might as well not be any such traditions, because if the church cannot elucidate exactly what those traditions are, what the CONTENT of those traditions exactly is, then there might as well not be any. And the "tradition" that there are oral traditions within the church is a fiction.Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church did not "give us" the bible, that is a Roman Catholic myth and a Roman Catholic fiction, historical revisionism of the worst sort. All the church did was recognize what the Bible already was, period. There was a need to do this because "books" were popping up all over the place purportedly written by the apostles that were actually frauds. So a process of canonization had to take place. No one from the Roman Catholic church wrote the Bible. Why? Because there was no Roman Catholic Church. There wasn't even a Roman Bishop until 140-150. And the Roman Catholic Church that we have today did not exist until after the Council of Trent. So much for the RCC claim of always being the same....blessings,ken

 

[epistemaniac]

(goldy;65876)
Sure, there may be bickering going on within the Church. But we're all still under one roof. I once heard this analogy:Imagine two big fields: On one field, you have thousands upon thousands of tents all using the same book, but none of them can seem to agree with anyone else in all the other tents (Protestantism)On another field, you have a huge mansion. There are many brothers and sisters under this one roof, and they are bickering about small matters here and there. But they remain under this roof and they all have the same papa who keeps their family strong and shepherds his family (Catholicism)Be careful with this book you are reading. What is Mathison's background? Where does he get his information for this book? Are his sources truly reliable? I've heard it once said, "Millions of people hate the Catholic Church for what they THINK it believes. But there are but a small few who hate the Catholic Church for what it TRULY believes.
still under one roof ehhhh? lol... big deal, the same can be said for Mormonism.... for Jehovah's Witnesses.... they all make the same claims.... being "unified".... however one may want to continue to define and redefine one's church as being "in unity" doesn't prove anything at all. It certainly does not prove that Rome is "the one true church" that she is the Holy Mother church" or any other such nonsense....Prove that anything I have said so far is false... that it is merely what I THINK Rome believes.... I hate many of the doctrines that Rome teaches, especially her error on the gospel itself.... but there are many fine people within Rome.... its the Roman Church as an organization that it is worthy of disdain, because she teaches a false gospel, and all who blindly follow her are lost.... we are to follow Christ Jesus, for there is one mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ, NOT the Roman Church.... 1 Timothy 2:5 (ESV) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, blessings,ken

 

[goldy]

(epistemaniac;65879)
still under one roof ehhhh? lol... big deal, the same can be said for Mormonism.... for Jehovah's Witnesses.... they all make the same claims.... being "unified".... however one may want to continue to define and redefine one's church as being "in unity" doesn't prove anything at all. It certainly does not prove that Rome is "the one true church" that she is the Holy Mother church" or any other such nonsense....Prove that anything I have said so far is false... that it is merely what I THINK Rome believes.... I hate many of the doctrines that Rome teaches, especially her error on the gospel itself.... but there are many fine people within Rome.... its the Roman Church as an organization that it is worthy of disdain, because she teaches a false gospel, and all who blindly follow her are lost.... we are to follow Christ Jesus, for there is one mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ, NOT the Roman Church.... 1 Timothy 2:5 (ESV) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, blessings,ken
Wow,you have a lot time on your hands......Just one question: Where do you get your information from regarding the RCC? How do you know it's the truth? And since I don't have hours upon hours to study history (I'm only on here a lot today because one of my 3 small children are sick and the others are down for a nap

), I won't respond to anymore of this. So again, where do you get your information from? Is it from bitter ex-Catholics? Witch hunters? There has been bad people in the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. There's been great people as well.....we call many of them saints. Spout and spout all you want. Your proclamations are beginning to fall on deaf ears. God Bless and have a nice rest of your weekend. I'm done with this thread

 

[Christina]

(goldy;65870)
I simply used an analogy about the bridge KrissDid I disrespect you in any way?Please don't call me brainwashed Just stop......As I've said for the umpteenth time, and I'll say it really slowly: I....AGREE.....WITH....EVERY....SINGLE.....WORD......IN......THE......BIBLEI just don't agree with your interpretations of many of the passages. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE.......JUST RESPECT MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ditto ...

 

[epistemaniac]

you seem to make some pretty sweeping generalizations don't you.... what makes you think I know what I know from a single book?every time I tell you that your church is wrong, I am saying that it is the bible and the bible alone where we are to go for our doctrine and morals... and we need to always take into account what the church, not the Roman Catholic Church per se, has believed and taught and interpreted the Scriptures.... and the early church knew nothing of the Roman Catholic Church, its traditions, it Mariolatry, its indulgences, its purgatory, its papal infallibility, and on and on it goes.... so I will take the church universal over the roman catholic Church any day...where do I get my knowledge about the RCC? From The Roman Catholic Ency New Advent, from its documents from Council of Trent, from Augustine, from Aquinas, from Peter Kreeft, from Patrick Madrid's "Surprised by the Truth", from Stephen Ray's "Crossing the Tiber", from various Roman Catholic forums I have participated in over the years, from my mother and other family members who have been members of the RCC for generations, from my step dad's family who have been members of the RCC for generations, some of whom work at Notre Dame, from professors I have known who have taught at Notre Dame, from Robert Reymond's "The Conflict With Rome and Why It Must Continue", from RC Sproul's "Willing to Believe" (highlighting the controversy between Erasmus and Luther), from RC Sproul's "Faith Alone" (highlighting the issues surrounding the start of the Reformation) , from RC Sproul's "Getting the gospel Right" (highlighting the differences in the gospel is between classical Protestantism and RCC), from RC Sproul's "Grace Unknown, The Heart of Reformed Theology", (highlighting the differences between Rome and classical Protestantism), from "Roman Catholicism" Evangelical Protestants Analyze What divides and Unites Us" edited by John Armstrong, from James McCarthy's ", "Conversations With Catholics; Catholic Tradition in Light of Biblical Truth", from John Armstrong's "The Catholic Mystery; Understanding The Beliefs and Practices of Modern Catholicism"; from Ron Rhodes "Reasoning From the Scriptures With Roman Catholics"; from James White's "Mary, Another Redeemer?"; from Ron Rhodes "The 10 most Important things You Can Say To A Catholic", from Robert Reymond's "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith", from Francis Turretin "The Institutes of Elentic Theology in 3 Volumes"; etc etc etc I have several thousand books in my own personal library and am a voracious reader... Finally, I do not stand as an individual when I say your "Church" is wrong, I stand with many from the Reformation, and prior to the Reformation, who say the same thing. So its not just me and my "private interpretations".So let me ask you... and please... list for me... all the Protestant writings you have read.... Brother to Brother, Christian to Christian...blessings,ken

 

[epistemaniac]

(goldy;65814)
Well, you're right. This is simply your opinion Kriss. So I have a question: If you read, for example, John chapter 6, what does this mean to you? As a Catholic this means that I should eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life within me. I'm guessing you would disagree with me. So who's right, you or me?I find it quite interesting that you constantly accuse the RCC of having traditions of men. But when you tell me this, you are simply stating your opinion and interpreting scripture for yourself. And so here we are today: 33,000 sects of Protestantism.......basically meaning 33,000 different private interpretations of scripture. After all, we only need to go to the Word of God, right?
remember, this line of reasoning is dishonest... whenever a RCC member takse this route remind them of the many internal strife's and conflicts that exist within Rome..... never let them off the hook in thinking that they are part of something that is totally and absolutely united.... Rome is not totally united and never has been.... people have accused one another of heresy from within the church, the church has "disciplined" people within the church for teaching doctrines that they do not approve of, etc etc... if they were in lockstep conformity with one antoher, these sorts of things would never happen...but mainly, its the very same situation I was once in as I was visiting a Jehovah's witness Hall.... one of them tried this same line of reasoning the :why are there so many denominations" etc etc.... I told him that their unity means little to me, for they disfelloship everyone that does not bring themselves into lockstep conformity with Bethel and the Watchtower's teaching.... this enforced unity is a hollow shell of the kind of unity the body of Christ is supposed to have, and it is no different with Rome.... in the past Rome could take this very same authoritarian approach when she had the political power to kill those who disagreed with her and her doctrines, they could exclude from communion any she saw fit.... and as time passed, and she could no longer simply kill those who dared to disagree, she anathematized all those daring to disagree.... as more time passed and her arm was no longer so long.... even today, the disagreements within Rome are many, and since she no longer has the power of life and death at her disposal, the disagreements are even more vocal, as the controversies about abortion, about birth control, about Priests being allowed to marry, woman's roles in the church, ie being priests.... about charismatic issues.... and on and on it goes.... for a RCC member to present their church as absolutely unified is simply a lie.... of course the RCC member often next speaks about how glorious their church is, that it is bigger on the inside then it is on the outside, that there is freedom of expression and differences"... well a label means very little if you cannot agree as to what the label means.... and this is shown ever more starkly in the Modernist versus Traditionalist controversy.... the Traditionalist insists on a Latin Mass, and are very upset that the church has opened up the possibility of salvation for those outside the "Holy Mother" church... Rome is truly divided on many issues...blessings,ken

 

[epistemaniac]

(goldy;65876)
Sure, there may be bickering going on within the Church. But we're all still under one roof. I once heard this analogy:Imagine two big fields: On one field, you have thousands upon thousands of tents all using the same book, but none of them can seem to agree with anyone else in all the other tents (Protestantism)On another field, you have a huge mansion. There are many brothers and sisters under this one roof, and they are bickering about small matters here and there. But they remain under this roof and they all have the same papa who keeps their family strong and shepherds his family (Catholicism)Be careful with this book you are reading. What is Mathison's background? Where does he get his information for this book? Are his sources truly reliable? I've heard it once said, "Millions of people hate the Catholic Church for what they THINK it believes. But there are but a small few who hate the Catholic Church for what it TRULY believes.
its not a book I am reading... its a book I have read and consulted many time subsequently... if you dare, you can read it yourself, its free online at google books... he is a first rate scholar and footnotes are prevalent throughout the book... you can see for yourself that his sources are reliable. His background? Dr. Keith A. Mathison received his B.A. in Christianity and political science from Houston Baptist University and then studied at Dallas Theological Seminary for two years before completing his M.A. in theological studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. He has also earned a Ph.D. in Christian thought from Whitefield Theological Seminary.Dr. Mathison is director of curriculum development for Ligonier Ministries and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He is author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God, Postmillenialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and The Shape of Sola Scriptura, as well as numerous articles and book reviews.Most recently, Dr. Mathison served as the assistant editor of The Reformation Study Bible English Standard Version. He adapted the notes from the New King James Version to the new translation where necessary and helped to oversee the editing process."Just because he is a Protestant does not mean he cannot present accurate information about Roman Catholicism. This is irrational, and is an Informal Logical Fallacy known as he Genetic Fallacy, i.e. negating a proposition or set of propositions based on their source.... blessings,ken

 

[epistemaniac]

goldy......?????? I took the time and made the effort to answer your questions... would you mind repaying the favor and answering mine...? specifically
So let me ask you... and please... list for me... all the Protestant writings you have read.... Brother to Brother, Christian to Christian...

 

[goldy]

(epistemaniac;65959)
goldy......?????? I took the time and made the effort to answer your questions... would you mind repaying the favor and answering mine...? specifically
Sorry. I wasn't avoiding you. Why don't you PM me with your contact information. I see that you're in Indiana. I'm in Indianapolis. Maybe this could be discussed over the phone or in person?And for the record, I spend the majority of my free spiritual time either praying my rosary, reading scripture, reading Catholic books, or listening to apologetics tapes by John Martignoni, Tim Staples, Fr. John Corapi, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, and Dr. Ray Guerindi. I don't study much Protestantism because I don't believe I need to. I feel as though if I wanted to truly study Protestantism, all I need to do is study the Bible and nothing else.

 

[Jordan]

Yea well, hate to break it to you, Protestant are just as guilty as Catholics as they both are of men came from men and is of men. Some better than others, but still of men. Those who overcomes the world like Christ did first, are neither Catholics nor Protestants.

 

[epistemaniac]

(goldy;65961)
Sorry. I wasn't avoiding you. Why don't you PM me with your contact information. I see that you're in Indiana. I'm in Indianapolis. Maybe this could be discussed over the phone or in person?And for the record, I spend the majority of my free spiritual time either praying my rosary, reading scripture, reading Catholic books, or listening to apologetics tapes by John Martignoni, Tim Staples, Fr. John Corapi, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, and Dr. Ray Guerindi. I don't study much Protestantism because I don't believe I need to. I feel as though if I wanted to truly study Protestantism, all I need to do is study the Bible and nothing else.
Then perhaps you should not infer that Protestants like myself cannot be trusted in our perspectives on the RCC if we happen to read only Protestant literature, which, in my case, is not true anyway. After all, it would be a double standard for you to think that you can read only RCC literature and then comment on Protestantism's beliefs, criticize those beliefs, and then criticize Protestants who read only Protestant literature. Ergo, when you ask "So again, where do you get your information from? Is it from bitter ex-Catholics? Witch hunters? " I might ask you, "Where do you get YOUR information from? Bitter ex Protestants? Witch hunters?" But this line of reasoning is a dead end anyway.... a member of the RCC can provide accurate information about what Protestantism believes, just as a Protestant can provide accurate information about what Rome believes, even bitter ex-RCC can do this. Its rather odd for you to insinuate that I cannot be correct about the RCC because I might read only Protestant literature (which as I have pointed out is not true) yet at the same time, you admit that you do not feel as if you need to study Protestantism and the writers who represent this tradition. And thinking that you can know what Protestantism believes by only studying the bible is a faulty assumption. If you do not study the history of the reason why the protestant Reformation started, as well as the precursors to the Reformers, Huss and Wycliff, then you will not be able to simply just go to the Scriptures and understand the differences of views on issues like justification and propitiation. You need to have the integrity to give Protestantism a fair hearing at the very least. If in the end you remain RCC, then fine. But at least you will have had the moral fortitude to have heard the controversies evenly and fairly, and find yourself disagreeing with what classical Protestantism actually believes, and not a caricature. After all this is what you are wanting from those who disagree with the RCC, isn't it? That they/we disagree with what Rome ACTUALLY teaches and not caricatures of their belief system? Why then should it be any different for you? Why would you suppose that you should be exempt from this same error? You should truly understand classical Protestantism before you disagree with it, and if you think that all you have to do is read the bible to understand the issues, well, this is naive, to say the least. blessings,ken