The doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that we should believe only what we find clearly taught in the Bible; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found nowhere clearly taught in the Bible; so…???
Share
Tweet
Email
Print
This Post Has 102 Comments
Jeremy June 22, 2012
I became a Christian from being an atheist about 18 months ago. Sola Scriptural seem like something so self evident it didn’t need to be codified.
If your faith isn’t based on that clearly in scripture and solely scripture, surely heresies like, indulgences can enter the fray.
Jeremy June 22, 2012
*scriptura, iPad spell check got me!
The Sarge June 22, 2012
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, since it is not taught in the Bible, refutes itself.
Jeremy June 22, 2012
Since joining a Baptist Church I’ve been taught that The reformation happened as there was a need to leave the Catholic Church in the 16th century due to; corruption in the Church, infidelity on the part of the Pope and a general belief that Catholic practice had moved away the reality of personal relationship with God, amongst other reasons. So Sola Scriptura was a logical conclusion of what to base the foundation of a new Church on, not a revelatory conclusion.
Anil Wang June 22, 2012
Actually, to me this isn’t a convincing argument. In theory, sola scriptura might not be able to provide the full revelation of Tradition, but it could provide enough for salvation.
The theory would only work, however, if there were only a handful of denominations with nearly identical doctrines, and those doctrines did not change in the 500 years since the Protestant Revolution. If these were true, sola scriptura might well be true even if it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
In practice, neither of these are true. In particular Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and even Zwingli wouldn’t be able to recognize most Churches that claim them as their founders and would denounce many of their doctrines.
*That* is the achilles heal of sola scriptura. If for the sake of example Presbyterians of 1900 would denounce as heretical the open communion, “any Church is okay as long as its Christian”, “contraception is a positive good”, “divorce and remarriage are okay”, “rapture theology”, …. of the typical modern Presbyterian church, then its clear that sola scriptura isn’t even able to preserve a denomination, much less lead to the “blessed assurance” of knowing you have “the right understanding” of scripture, and thus knowledge of what we need to be saved.
Jeremy June 23, 2012
I have an open mind on Catholicism. Being a new Christian an having converted from atheism I’m open, I have an open mind, obviously a denominational change is a smaller move in belief. However, it seems clear to me from reading the Gospels that according to Jesus been saved consists of believing in Him in word and mind, loving God and neighbor, repenting, baptism and a few other requirements. None of them denomination specific.
So when a Catholic says, essentially, only Catholics go to heaven I have to roll my eyes. I can’t write more at the moment but your post is interesting.
Hi Jeremy, I became a Christian from being an atheist about 18 months ago. Sola Scriptural seem like something so self evident it didn’t need to be codified.
But Sola Scriptura says that if it isn’t codified, it isn’t valid.
If your faith isn’t based on that clearly in scripture and solely scripture, surely heresies
That’s what we are trying to tell you. Please provide the teaching of Sola Scriptura in Scripture. It isn’t there. Therefore, it is a heresy. It contradicts Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
like, indulgences can enter the fray.
According to Protestants, indulgences are used in order that one may pay their way into heaven.
This is what Jesus says about that:
Mark 10:21?Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Since joining a Baptist Church I’ve been taught ….
You’ve heard on side of the story. Now learn the truth. Come to the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Jeremy June 23, 2012
Studying the history of the reformation, it seems to me people were completely fed up with what Catholicism was at the time. In many ways a political and financial institution, acting as a weight on them and corrupt and scandal ridden.
Fed up people said we want to re-establish a Church based on what Jesus said using the Bible put together by the Church they were leaving as the basis.
For me I don’t see how this point on Sola Scriptura not being clearly defined in the Bible is a crushing blow given the historic circumstances. Logic leeds in one in their situation in the direction they went. For example, a book of math proofs is a perfectly legitimate thing to base your belief in the truth of math on. But no math proof is ever going to prove math is a source of truth. That math is a source of truth must be presupposed. The Bible is the same, in fact if the truth of the Bible is presupposed Christianity becomes a nonsense. The difference between math and the Bible of course is no new revelation of truth is going to be added to the Bible. Knowing it is complete and a source of truth, it then becomes completely logical to base your belief on it solely.
Jeremy June 23, 2012
*in fact if te truth of the Bible is NOT presupposed.
Not the iPad’s fault that time!
The Sarge June 23, 2012
So, believing a doctrine that only doctrines taught in the Bible–a doctrine which is NOT taught in the Bible–should be believed despite the fact that it contradicts itself is logical?
Joel D'souza June 23, 2012
How are we to reliably trust the teachings of men especially if they have a pedophile nature. Surely they will not have the in-dwelling Holy Spirit but a familiar spirit that will guide them to provide faulty teachings not on line with scripture.
Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”
So Sola scriptura is the only surest passport to heaven. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to “traditions” of teachings taught by the Apostles and passed down from generation to generation and is not to be confused by the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Carholic Church. They are not one and the same.
Hi Jeremy,
You said, Studying the history of the reformation, it seems to me people were completely fed up with what Catholicism was at the time.
Then they were fed up with the Wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10).
In many ways a political and financial institution, acting as a weight on them and corrupt and scandal ridden.
Jesus Himself said that the weeds would be amongst the wheat to the end (Matt 13:30). Yet, He still established the Church and said that it would not succumb to the Gates of Hell (Matt 16:18).
Fed up people said we want to re-establish a Church based on what Jesus said using the Bible put together by the Church they were leaving as the basis.
Because they have cast aside the institution which Christ built (Matt 16:18; Heb 13:17) and substituted themselves as authority over God’s word (Eph 2:2).
For me I don’t see how this point on Sola Scriptura not being clearly defined in the Bible is a crushing blow given the historic circumstances. Logic leeds in one in their situation in the direction they went. For example, a book of math proofs is a perfectly legitimate thing to base your belief in the truth of math on. But no math proof is ever going to prove math is a source of truth. That math is a source of truth must be presupposed. The Bible is the same, in fact if the truth of the Bible is presupposed Christianity becomes a nonsense. The difference between math and the Bible of course is no new revelation of truth is going to be added to the Bible. Knowing it is complete and a source of truth, it then becomes completely logical to base your belief on it solely.
The problem is that you are not relying upon the Bible. You are relying upon YOUR interpretation of the Bible and casting aside that Institution which Jesus built and which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Hi Joel, How are we to reliably trust the teachings of men especially if they have a pedophile nature.
You’ll have to tell me. We don’t have any teachings of men. And there are just as many pedophiles in your church as there are anywhere else. So, tell me how YOU rely upon them. We don’t.
Surely they will not have the in-dwelling Holy Spirit but a familiar spirit that will guide them to provide faulty teachings not on line with scripture.
You know better than I. Since you follow the men who have insulted the Holy Spirit (Heb 10:25-31).
Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”
You might want to get your faith advice from someone who understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ a little better than the man who advised adultery.
So Sola scriptura is the only surest passport to heaven.
It is a passport to disobedience and disobedience a passport to eternal punishment:
Ephesians 5:6
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to “traditions” of teachings taught by the Apostles and passed down from generation to generation and is not to be confused by the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Carholic Church. They are not one and the same.
Yeah, they are. It is Sola Scriptura which is the heresy contradicting the Word of God.
Jeremy June 23, 2012
Do you believe that De Maria, that Baptists will reach the throne of God and God will ask, “Did you love Me? Did you love your neighbor? Did you follow My commands? Where you Baptised?”
“Yes Lord, I did all things to the best of my ability”
“Well done my good and faithful servant but too bad you weren’t Catholic off to hell with you”
Lolek Pugeda June 24, 2012
POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
1) The reformation was a product of a totally different time period, thus a question I would like to raise is why are the Protestants still “protesting”, when the sale of indulgences ended over 400 years ago?ANSWER: Because the protestants are as much caught up to the traditions of anti-catholicism as we ,Catholics, are to the holy traditions of the Church.
2) Why should we trust the current Church when it had a corrupt past?
ANSWER: The same reason why we can trust current Germany despite its Nazi past.
3) If the Bible is the only form of authority, then who will lead the illiterate?
ANSWER: The ordained. The bible was meant to be dissiminated among the people through legitimate clergymen ordained through the apostolic sacrament. (see #4 for support)
4) If the holy Eucharist and Baptism are the only legitmate sacraments, then who will administer them?
ANSWER: That’s why we have the sacrament of holy orders.
5) Why should we follow the opinion of the Pope on the gospels?
ANSWER: It’s not an opinion, it’s a product of over 1800 years of constructive analysis of the Bible. Thus its Theology.
6) Why can’t women be priests?
ANSWER: The same reason why men can’t be nuns. (Adding that being a nun is as much a privilege as being a priest.)
Do you believe that De Maria, that Baptists will reach the throne of God and God will ask, “Did you love Me? Did you love your neighbor? Did you follow My commands? Where you Baptised?”
Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremeeeee. God won’t ask any questions. Have you not read Matt 25:31-45? God will tell you what you good you did and what good you did not do. And only those who did the will of God on this earth will enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 7:21).
“Yes Lord, I did all things to the best of my ability”
There will be no need for us to say a word. There will be no pop quiz, no multiple choice test. We might ask questions of God.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
How many times have you read the Scripture Jeremy? Or is that one of those that you consider surpasseed?
“Well done my good and faithful servant but too bad you weren’t Catholic off to hell with you”
I think He will say that to you. He’ll say, “Jeremy, too bad you didn’t listen to Ray and all my messengers that I sent to tell you about the Catholic Church. You would have saved yourelf a lot of suffering in Purgatory.” ; )
Bill912 June 24, 2012
“…too bad you weren’t Catholic off to hell with you.”
Jeremy, the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. If you are going to criticize the Church, atleast find out from Catholic sources what she teaches and why.
Joel D'souza June 24, 2012
De Maria:
You’ll have to tell me. We don’t have any teachings of men. And there are just as many pedophiles in your church as there are anywhere else. So, tell me how YOU rely upon them. We don’t.
By your comment it shows you are plainly irked at my comment because my comment was in generalization at not targeting a specific denomination. You have revealed the weakness of the Catholic Church. Therefore i must say this: “If the cap suits you, then by all means wear it”.
I am now a Baptist. I have been an ex-Catholic myself and I know I am writing of the things I know about and lived with.
You said: By your comment it shows you are plainly irked at my comment
That is true.
because my comment was in generalization at not targeting a specific denomination.
Ha, ha, ha! I was born yesterday, but I wasn’t born last night. Let me put it like this. Riiiiiiight.
You have revealed the weakness of the Catholic Church.
??? If you perceive a weakness in me, why do you then apply it to the Catholic Church? Are your weaknesses all applicable to your Protestant upbringing?
Therefore i must say this: “If the cap suits you, then by all means wear it”.
But I see that the cap fits you best. So, it is yours to wear.
I am now a Baptist. I have been an ex-Catholic myself and I know I am writing of the things I know about and lived with.
I was ex-Catholic for 15 years of my life. Then God opened my eyes to the truth of the Catholic Church and I returned as quick as I could. I hope that God, one day opens your eyes as well.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Jeremy June 24, 2012
I’ve brought the One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong to give Catholocisim a fair shake. I’ll visit a Mass as well.
Jeremy June 24, 2012
*catholicism, sorry!
Joel D'Souza June 25, 2012
St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatian church because, after his departure, ravening wolves (anti-sola scriptura) moved in, who perverted Paul’s Gospel of man’s free justification by faith in Christ Jesus.
The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth.
Lolek Pugeda June 25, 2012
To Joel:
So your part of the baptist church? Which one? The westboro, new birth missionary, etc? I’m sorry its just that there are SO many!
Lolek Pugeda June 25, 2012
To Joel:
So your part of a baptist church? Which one? The westboro, new birth missionary, etc? I’m sorry it’s just that there are SO many!
Hi Joel, St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatian church because, after his departure, ravening wolves (anti-sola scriptura) moved in, who perverted Paul’s Gospel of man’s free justification by faith in Christ Jesus.
That statement is proof of why Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. You, Joel, a sola scripturist adherent, feel free to add to Scripture. Now, if you don’t believe me, show me where these “ravening wolves” are described as being “anti-sola scriptura”?
It’s not there. You added that to Scripture.
The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world.
Amen.
Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth.
That is also true. But what you don’t recognize is that you, in attacking the doctrines of the Catholic Church, join those who attack the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Hi Jeremy, I’ve brought the One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong to give Catholocisim a fair shake. I’ll visit a Mass as well.
Good for you!
Corey June 25, 2012
Great back and forth on this one but it all comes down to this…
1. Jesus established a Church on the Apostles, a Church to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth.
2. The Apostolic orders were to continue in succession, otherwise the Apostles would have never replaced Judas. This much is clear from anyone who picks up any of the writings from the disciples of the Apostles (Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, etc).
3. It is clear that the early Church was unified in its belief in the Real Presence, Communion of Saints, adherence to the Bishop as the institution of Christ, and other Catholic doctrines that Protestants no longer adhere to.
4. The Church came before the Bible. If the Church included the Apostles, Mark, Luke and whomever truly wrote Hebrews, then it follows that the Church gave us the Bible not the other way around. Protestants think that true churches are founded on the Bible. I guess this would exclude any pre-fourth century church.
5. Even Protestant scholars agree that the father of the new testament canon is St. Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop in the mid-fourth century. (Important fact for Joel to digest since he thinks Paul wrote Galatians to combat sola-scriptura. What scripture Joel?)
6. The new “testament” is a latin rooted word that simply means “covenant”. What does Jesus say the new “testament” is? Not a list of books, rather he refers to the new testament as his Blood as instituted in the Eucharist (Matthew 26:28). According to the New Testament, the New Testament was a Sacrament long before it was a list of books.
7. If Jesus promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that nothing would prevail against it until the end of time, the ONLY Church this can possibly refer to unless you are historically ignorant is the Catholic Church. In the first few centuries of Christianity, one of the early Church Fathers quipped: the Catholic Church is everywhere but united as one body; all of the heretical sects are likewise everywhere but divided and the only thing they are united against is their hatred of the Catholic Church which is the truth.
You can hate the Church all you want, but it is the only Church that was there at the beginning and still standing 2,000 years later.
Joel D'souza June 25, 2012
Corey:
You will have to give a clear definition of what a “Church” really means and whether the definition attributes to the same as laid out in the New Testament. Also does it mean “Church” = Catholic Church is also = Roman Catholic Church? What i see here very slyly and subtly, “Church” and “Catholic Church” are used interchangeably for ulterior motives.
Keep in mind according to the scriptures that the first Church was a Christian Church at Antioch and the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch as per Acts 11:26. You will not find a single verse in the Bible that explicitly has the the words “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Because Christ, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity are deeply related to each other.
Joel D'souza June 25, 2012
Lolek Pugeda: POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
1) The reformation was a product of a totally different time period, thus a question I would like to raise is why are the Protestants still “protesting”, when the sale of indulgences ended over 400 years ago?
I am quite sure that I cannot be wrong, but the current pope very recently announced that Catholics could buy indulgences if they not able to make the trip to one of the Marian shrines.
I must say you are still asleep and not aware of what is happening around you. That’s why I pity you gotta “Cradle-catholic” tag hanging around you neck.
So your part of the baptist church? Which one? The westboro, new birth missionary, etc? I’m sorry its just that there are SO many
Do you have a problem if there are so many?. And what makes you say One has the truth while the SO many are liars and will go to Hell???
Bill912 June 25, 2012
Exactly where did Lolek Pugeda say that “…while the SO many are liars and will go to Hell???”
Joel D'souza June 25, 2012
De Maria:
That is also true. But what you don’t recognize is that you, in attacking the doctrines of the Catholic Church, join those who attack the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I attack only doctrines of the Catholic church that are in not in agreement with scripture. Lets not pretend there isn’t contentious issues. You have to accept the fact that there are discrepancies existing. If the Catholic church says Scripture plus Tradition .. – why can’t they be in harmony instead of contradictory? For e.g. The Catholic Church says Mary assumed bodily into heaven. However It is not supported in scripture. The result: I cannot obey what the Catholic Church teaches in its traditions but only what the scripture teaches. In this case I treat scripture as authority above in issue stated.
Joel D'souza June 25, 2012
Bill912:
it is obviously implied.
Jerry June 25, 2012
One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong to give Catholocisim a fair shake.
I converted to the Catholic Church in 1997 and I did a year of research and study on the Catholic Church before I came in. I read the arguments of James White, William Webster, Dave Hunt, Robert Zins to name a few. I don’t think just reading a basic book by Dave Armstrong gives a fair shot to Catholocisim at all.
Jeremy June 25, 2012
I don’t think just reading a basic book by Dave Armstrong gives a fair shot to Catholocisim at all.
Well, to be honest I’d rather put my effort into reading the Bible and words of Jesus. I’ll read a book of basic arguments by one of the leading modern Catholic Apologists and if not convinced I’ll put my effort in the Bible, to revisit the issue of denominations after my understand of Jesus and faith has grown.
You said, You will have to give a clear definition of what a “Church” really means
It is the Corporation (body of Christ) which Christ founded. He set upon it a Chairman and 11 officers to guide it at its foundation (Matt 16:18; Rev 21:14). And He gave this Church authority to discipline its members (Matt 18:17).
and whether the definition attributes to the same as laid out in the New Testament.
Sure does.
Also does it mean “Church” = Catholic Church is also = Roman Catholic Church? What i see here very slyly and subtly, “Church” and “Catholic Church” are used interchangeably for ulterior motives.
The Catholic Church is the Church described in Scripture.
The Church in Scripture has a Shepherd assigned by Christ (John 21:17), has authority (Matt 18:17), is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10), passes on Tradition (2 Thess 2:15), condemns faith alone (James 2:17), preaches the Sacraments (Mark 16:16), offers the Eucharist (John 6:51), etc. etc.
Not one Protestant Church has all those attributes.
Keep in mind according to the scriptures that the first Church was a Christian Church at Antioch and the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch as per Acts 11:26.
That is where member of Christ Church were first called Christians. That is not where the Church was established.
You will not find a single verse in the Bible that explicitly has the the words “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Because Christ, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity are deeply related to each other.
However, you will find the attributes and doctrines of the Church described. And they are all Catholic.
Lolek said: 1) The reformation was a product of a totally different time period, thus a question I would like to raise is why are the Protestants still “protesting”, when the sale of indulgences ended over 400 years ago?
Joel responded: I am quite sure that I cannot be wrong, but the current pope very recently announced that Catholics could buy indulgences if they not able to make the trip to one of the Marian shrines.
Indulgences continue to be provided by the Catholic Church. It is a true doctrine established by Jesus Christ:
Luke 11:41
But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
There is however, a wrong way to manage this practice. This is partially illustrated in Scripture (Acts 8:17-19).
The unlawful use of indulgences has been condemned and in fact, has never been permitted. Those who unlawfully offered them in olden times have paid for their offense.
I must say you are still asleep and not aware of what is happening around you. That’s why I pity you gotta “Cradle-catholic” tag hanging around you neck.
And we pity you. May God forgive you your Pharisaic attitude.
Joel, you said:
Do you have a problem if there are so many?.
You should too (Ephesians 4:5).
And what makes you say One has the truth while the SO many are liars and will go to Hell???
Scripture says so (1 Tim 3:15; 4:1; 4:16; and Matthew 7:13-15).
Well, to be honest I’d rather put my effort into reading the Bible and words of Jesus. I’ll read a book of basic arguments by one of the leading modern Catholic Apologists and if not convinced I’ll put my effort in the Bible, to revisit the issue of denominations after my understand of Jesus and faith has grown.
To Joel:
I didn’t say that others are going to hell, its your fellow baptists who are saying it (I.e. Westboro)
Corey June 26, 2012
De Maria:
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Joel: You said “you will not find a single verse in the Bible that explicitly has the the words “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Because Christ, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity are deeply related to each other.” I understand what you are saying and don’t disagree that all Christians have some truth and are deeply related. However, a lie becomes stronger when mixed with truth. Having part of the truth does not imply that all paths are equal. I think you would agree with that. We are all called to be of the same mind and remain united as one body (1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2, Ephesians 4:3, Romans 15:6). But one can hardly say that all Christians are united. We can only agree that we are all united to a lesser degree. If I were to poll even Protestants and ask what are the minimum set of beliefs are for salvation, you will get wildly different opinions in the over 34,000 different denominations that now exist as a consequence of the reformation.
Jesus gave the Apostles unprecedented power (Matthew 18:18). He instructed them to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe ALL that He commanded (Matthew 28:19-20) and this includes sacred Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). Not some, not a little, not just what you want to follow or deem important. With the reformation came the view that absolute truth and salvation comes mostly from a few commands in the Bible (love and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior). But believing in Christ while refusing to conform one’s life to ALL that he commands is a lie (1 John 1:4-6, James 2:19). Peter even warns that the lawless will twist the words of Paul to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-17). So then what is the outcome?
As the late Bishop Fulton Sheen once said, “if you don’t live what you believe, you will end up believing what you live”. This is the only natural outcome of disunity and rejection of authority. I choose a lifestyle and hold that it doesn’t matter what I do since I am once saved, always saved. The pastor tells me I’m doing something wrong, I just go find a church that teaches otherwise. There are over 34k to choose from. This is what I call “billboard Christianity”. Drive down any stretch of highway and you’ll find billboard after billboard of churches claiming to have the truth. The problem is that with such a broad view of Christianity as Protestants hold, moral relativism sets in and the “customer” ends up being the one with the power to define what they believe to be the truth.
Lolek Pugeda June 26, 2012
To Joel:
You typed that its “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
Lolek Pugeda June 26, 2012
The problem with protestants is that they assume that the Catholic church would rob the people of their free will to interpret the bible, but if their is ONE God then logically there has to be ONE interpretation. The Catholic church can lay just claim on it because it’s foundation is Jesus’ blessing on Caesarea Philippi. Remember the first protestant church broke away FROM the Catholic church, meaning they deviated from the path intended rather than establish the path.
Well, to be honest I’d rather put my effort into reading the Bible and words of Jesus. I’ll read a book of basic arguments by one of the leading modern Catholic Apologists and if not convinced I’ll put my effort in the Bible, to revisit the issue of denominations after my understand of Jesus and faith has grown.
Sorry for the duplicate. It didn’t seem to take last night, so I simply came back and submitted it again this morning. Only to discover that it was already there.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'souza June 26, 2012
Lolek Pugeda To Joel:
I didn’t say that others are going to hell, its your fellow baptists who are saying it (I.e. Westboro)
To Joel:
You typed that its “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
That is Official teachings of the Catholic Church. The CC also teaches that ONLY those baptised as babies in the CC will enjoy eternal bliss. What about Muslim, Budshist babies will go Hell?
Joel D'souza June 26, 2012
De Maria:
Indulgences continue to be provided by the Catholic Church. It is a true doctrine established by Jesus Christ: Luke 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
Yeah i know .. its funny how you can buy your relatives out of “purgatory” and say Jesus approves it in luke 11:41. Just pop-in the coins into the coffer and your relatives will simply pop-out into eternal bliss. With the result Jesus went to the cross of no use.
Yeah i know .. its funny how you can buy your relatives out of “purgatory” and say Jesus approves it in luke 11:41. Just pop-in the coins into the coffer and your relatives will simply pop-out into eternal bliss.
1. I don’t remember saying any such thing.
2. However, I do remember proving that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE (1 Tim 3:15; 2 Thess 2:15; James 2:17; Romans 2:13; etc.)
3. As for indulgences, Luke 11:41 is one of the verses upon which we stand to support the doctrine of indulgences which is implied in Scripture. I you ever bothered to look, Scripture also says:
Treasure in heaven-Mark 12:43; Matt 6:20; 13:52; 19:21; Luke 12:33; Luke 18:22
Parent’s prayers save their children-Matthew 15:28; 17:15; Mark 9:21-27; Luke 9:38-42
Friend’s prayer save their friends-Matt 8:8; 9:2
Therefore the Teaching of Indulgences is strongly implied in Scripture. Whereas the Protestant doctrines not only absent, but contradict the Word of God.
With the result Jesus went to the cross of no use.
It is because Jesus went to the Cross and died for our sins, that we are now permitted to approach the Throne of God and through the Sacraments, be washed in His Blood (Matt 26:28; Heb 10:29).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lolek Pugeda June 27, 2012
To Joel:
Tell me where you got your information that only baptized Catholics go to heaven. (Remember it has to be an AUTHENTICALLY Catholic personage.)
Here’s mine
“As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1261
Also, you ask me if Muslim and Buddhist children will go to heaven? They could even considering that most have NOT even read the scriptures nor believe in it. While, Catholicism says that scripture and tradition are two inter-related means to live a WHOLESOME Christian life (Assuming you’re Christian.)
Scripture alone would seem sufficient but lacking, thus, to be WHOLLY Christian you need both. Understand also that dogmas and tradition are an extension of God’s will in the contemporary era.
Lastly, you didn’t really answer my question. You typed that it was “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
Joel D'souza June 27, 2012
To Lolek Pugeda:
One Roman Catholic tradition names a limbo for children who die before their baptisms or die outside of the Roman Catholic religion. Ir is removed from the CCC after Ratzinger became pope. There is no biblical support for this view, however. It is merely a religious opinion (not official Catholic teaching) which has been handed down by Catholic theologians. Read the document http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/salvatio.htm especially what the popes infallibly stated on Salvation outside the Catholic Church and other issues.
The closest biblical account for a “limbo” concerns “Abraham’s bosom” and “paradise” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Although it is a parable to teach a truth concerning prophecies declaring the kingdom of God, the places mentioned must exist or Jesus would not have used them. Parables are not based upon imaginary objects and locations, but on things which are real. So before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there were two places souls went upon death. One place is at the side of Abraham (often described as Abraham’s bosom); this would be for people who died in faith in God’s promised Messiah, just as Abraham did, and were declared righteous by faith (Genesis 15:4-6; Romans 4:13-24). Those who died in unbelief went to a place of torment. The Greek word used is hades and probably is the best Greek word for the Jewish sheol, literally “the lowest pit.” It is clearly a place of great torment.
But this is also a temporary limbo. These souls will appear at the second resurrection before the great white throne of Revelation 20:11-13. These people are not in the Book of Life because they do not have eternal life through faith in Christ, and they are cast into their final destination in the “Lake of Fire / Gehenna.” The idea of limbo as a realm in between heaven and hell, sort of another purgatory, is not biblical. If there is any sort of a limbo, it is the temporary holding place of the wicked (Hades / Sheol), which will eventually be emptied into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).
Lastly, you didn’t really answer my question. You typed that it was “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
The tone of your post dated implied that “..Being SO many” – implied worthless and without truth and also what the popes infallibly taught.
Joel,
You said to Lolek Pugeda: One Roman Catholic tradition names a limbo for children who die before their baptisms or die outside of the Roman Catholic religion. Ir is removed from the CCC after Ratzinger became pope. There is no biblical support for this view, however. It is merely a religious opinion (not official Catholic teaching) which has been handed down by Catholic theologians.
You’ve answered your own question. It is a theological opinion.
I go by what the Church teaches: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
The closest biblical account for a “limbo” concerns “Abraham’s bosom” and “paradise” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).
But didn’t you just deny that Limbo existed?
Although it is a parable to teach a truth concerning prophecies declaring the kingdom of God, the places mentioned must exist or Jesus would not have used them.
There you go. Limbo is the same as Purgatory.
Parables are not based upon imaginary objects and locations, but on things which are real.
Here are the other things which are real in that account.
1. The Saints speak.
2. The Saints are aware of the people on earth.
3. The Saints recognize the authority of other Saints.
4. The Saints are concerned for the welfare of their brethren on earth.
5. The Saints care for each other in the afterlife and have a relationship.
So before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there were two places souls went upon death. One place is at the side of Abraham (often described as Abraham’s bosom); this would be for people who died in faith in God’s promised Messiah, just as Abraham did, and were declared righteous by faith (Genesis 15:4-6; Romans 4:13-24).
God doesn’t change. Those places continue to exist to this day. At the Judgement, they will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
Those who died in unbelief went to a place of torment. The Greek word used is hades and probably is the best Greek word for the Jewish sheol, literally “the lowest pit.” It is clearly a place of great torment.
Yes. A temporary place of great torment. Purgatory is the other name for it.
But this is also a temporary limbo. These souls will appear at the second resurrection before the great white throne of Revelation 20:11-13. These people are not in the Book of Life because they do not have eternal life through faith in Christ, and they are cast into their final destination in the “Lake of Fire / Gehenna.”
Correct. They do not have eternal life through faith in Christ because they either did not have enough faith to submit t Baptism. Or if they did submit to Baptism, they did not believe in it (Mark 16:16). Therefore, they are not written in the book of life, unless they labored for the Kingdom of God and kept the Ten Commandments.
The idea of limbo as a realm in between heaven and hell, sort of another purgatory, is not biblical.
You just proved that it is.
If there is any sort of a limbo, it is the temporary holding place of the wicked (Hades / Sheol), which will eventually be emptied into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).
It is also a temporary holding place for the righteous. As you proved.
The tone of your post dated implied that “..Being SO many” – implied worthless and without truth and also what the popes infallibly taught.
You certainly read a great deal into those 3 little words. Lolek said there a many Protestant denominations and you interpret that to mean that he has judged them all condemned?
WOW???!!!
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'Souza June 27, 2012
De Maria:
?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Are you sure? Comes from Christ the Head – Head of what?
Joel D'Souza June 28, 2012
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
So if Catholic and Orthodox churches split – can we call it the one true church Jesus established be?
In fact, the primary aim of Jesus to come 2000 years ago as God manifest in the flesh, was to save that which are lost. He did not come to set denominations with labels.
Lolek Pugeda June 28, 2012
To Joel:
You said “The tone of your post dated implied that “..Being SO many” – implied worthless and without truth and also what the popes infallibly taught.”
That’s funny ’cause I just emphasized that there are so many protestant churches.
How do I expect you to correctly interpret the bible when you misinterpreted me?
Hi Joel, If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
So if Catholic and Orthodox churches split – can we call it the one true church Jesus established be?
Joel, your false assumption is leading you to error in your conclusion.
1st, Sola Scriptura is not wrong because it causes division, even Christ causes division (Luke 12:51) and He is all Truth (John 14:6).
2nd, Sola Scriptura is wrong because it contradicts Scripture (Matt 18:17; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 13:7; 17).
3rd, Sola Scriptura is also wrong because it is illogical. It contradicts itself because it claims that all valid doctrines must be explicit in Scripture. Yet, Sola Scriptura is not only absent from Scripture, but contradicts Scripture.
Having said that, is following Tradition a bad method to follow in order to ensure unity in the Church? I’d say that the proof of the pudding shows that it is far better than Sola Scriptura. There are more than 20,000 divisions in 500 years of Sola Scriptura. There are only, possibly 10 in 2000 years amongst the Ancient Churches which follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
Scripture says, “you will know them by their fruits”. Which is producing more unity and thus better fruit? “Sola Scriptura” or “Church, Tradition and Scripture”?
You be the judge.
In fact, the primary aim of Jesus to come 2000 years ago as God manifest in the flesh, was to save that which are lost.
Amen!
He did not come to set denominations with labels.
In order to save that which was lost, Jesus Christ established ONE Church (Matt 16:18) and commissioned that Church to teach that which He commanded (Matt 28:19-20). Jesus didn’t write even one word of Scripture.
It is Protestants who wrested authority from the Church (Matt 18:17) and proceeded to teach every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14) against the clear teaching of Scripture.
It is ironic, that in the guise of loving Scripture, they defied its power and authority.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'souza June 28, 2012
De Maria:
Head of the Body, which is the Church (Colossians 1:18).
Contradictions!! When lay Catholics are questioned who is the Head of the Church – the reply it is the pope. The pope also dons the self-ordained title – “vicar of Christ” which means Christ Representative. Scripture teaches in the New Testament Church we are all “ambassadors or Representative’s of Christ”. So why this merry go round the bush?
Joel D'souza June 28, 2012
De Maria:
Having said that, is following Tradition a bad method to follow in order to ensure unity in the Church? I’d say that the proof of the pudding shows that it is far better than Sola Scriptura. There are more than 20,000 divisions in 500 years of Sola Scriptura. There are only, possibly 10 in 2000 years amongst the Ancient Churches which follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
Please don’t simply look at the numbers. A division or a split is well.. just that and nothing else. A split takes place when there is disagreements on contentious issues. Again Christ came to establish his Church – a church comprising of spiritually born again believers, given the gift of salvation by God’s Grace through faith in Christ Jesus. I know it personally that I have been saved the Biblical way and not through works based salvation that denies the atonement of Christ redemption for mankind on the cross of calvary,
Contradictions!! When lay Catholics are questioned who is the Head of the Church – the reply it is the pope.
You were probably speaking to ex-Catholics like seven who left the Catholic Church because they didn’t understand the true Catholic Teaching.
The Church teaches that Christ is the head:
792 Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,” especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.
The pope also dons the self-ordained title – “vicar of Christ” which means Christ Representative.
That is from Scripture. Jesus assigned Simon as the Shepherd over the Church; John 21:17.
Scripture teaches in the New Testament Church we are all “ambassadors or Representative’s of Christ”.
That is true. And that confirms the principle that a man can represent God.
So why this merry go round the bush?
Because Jesus named Simon, the Rock, after Himself, thus designating him in authority over the Church. Read more.
Please don’t simply look at the numbers. A division or a split is well.. just that and nothing else.
If that were true, you wouldn’t be here trying to convince us that you are right and we are wrong. Besides, I am a regular poster in one of the most virulent anti-Catholic, evangelical Protestant sites. That site also opposes every flavor of Protestant that differs with their Calvinistic bias. They frequently condemn each other as much as they condemn Catholics.
So, in reality, it is not a simple, friendly “split” as you say. It is establishment of separate and opposing religions.
A split takes place when there is disagreements on contentious issues. Again Christ came to establish his Church – a church comprising of spiritually born again believers, given the gift of salvation by God’s Grace through faith in Christ Jesus.
Giving the gift of salvation to those who keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17; John 14:21-23) and the Sacraments of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16; Rom 2:13).
I know it personally that I have been saved the Biblical way
The Biblical way is the Catholic way. Your way is not found in Scripture.
and not through works based salvation that denies the atonement of Christ redemption for mankind on the cross of calvary,
It is because Christ died on the Cross that we are now permitted to approach the Throne of God and be saved by the mercy of God in the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Spirit, which occurs with every Sacrament (Titus 3:5).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lolek Pugeda June 29, 2012
Faith is fruitless without good works. Good works are meaningless without faith. We need both to lead a WHOLESOME Christian life.
Joel D'souza June 29, 2012
Hi Lolek:
Genuine faith in Christ will surely produce a changed life and good works. A person who is truly justified by faith will have good works evident in his/her life. Good works is a product of genuine faith in Christ and not a means of it.
Joel D'souza June 29, 2012
De Maria:
Besides, I am a regular poster in one of the most virulent anti-Catholic, evangelical Protestant sites. That site also opposes every flavor of Protestant that differs with their Calvinistic bias. They frequently condemn each other as much as they condemn Catholics.
I am happy to be a Bible believing Christian and I know the Lord loves me irrespective of my short-comings. He accepts me just as I am. I post on this blog with the intention of sharing the truth. The war is not against the flesh, but against spiritual wickedness in high places. I oppose doctrinal teachings that are anti-biblical. I am not against or condemn an individual as a person – Catholic or Protestant.
Its understandable the differences do exist between Catholic and Protestants, but you say numbers of Protestant are huge. Ok fine. But they all agree that the scriptures being God breathed are the sole rule of faith, and sufficient for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice – leaving aside differences in interpretation among themselves. Catholics say scripture ‘plus’ tradition. So here we have 50,000+ Protestant denominations versus just one Catholic who oppose submission to only scripture. So Protestants are in majority and they are right to oppose adding of un-biblical traditions to scripture, as the CC does.
Genuine faith in Christ will surely produce a changed life and good works.
Very good. Faith which does not produce a changed life and good works is dead (James 2:14; 17; 24).
A person who is truly justified by faith will have good works evident in his/her life.
Again, that is perfectly true (Romans 2:1-13; James 2:21-26).
Good works is a product of genuine faith in Christ and not a means of it.
Absolutely. And without that genuine faith which produces obedience to the Commandments of God, we are nothing (Matt 7:21; John 14:21-23; Romans 6:16; Heb 5:9; Rev 22:12-15).
I am happy to be a Bible believing Christian and I know the Lord loves me irrespective of my short-comings.
That is true.
He accepts me just as I am.
He placed the Church here in order to teach you how to achieve the perfection which He would like you to achieve (Matt 5:48; 2 Cor 13:9).
I post on this blog with the intention of sharing the truth.
I thank you for your good intention. However, I assure you that you only have a partial truth and if you want to have the fullness of the truth, you need to come to the Catholic Church (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The war is not against the flesh, but against spiritual wickedness in high places. I oppose doctrinal teachings that are anti-biblical.
Then you should be opposed to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and you should embrace every teaching of the Catholic Church.
I am not against or condemn an individual as a person – Catholic or Protestant.
Good for you. But it wouldn’t matter if you condemned or commended a Catholic or a Protestant. God is judge of all.
Its understandable the differences do exist between Catholic and Protestants, but you say numbers of Protestant are huge. Ok fine. But they all agree that the scriptures being God breathed are the sole rule of faith,
And that is the main reason that they differ with each other on so many other doctrines. Because they each interpret the Scriptures differently and rely upon their own understanding (Proverbs 3:5; 2 Pet 1:19-21).
and sufficient for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice –
The Catholic Church does not deny that the Scriptures are materially sufficient for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice. The difference is the addition of the word, “sole”. Scripture is clear that one can learn their faith, doctrine and practice from the Church (Eph 3:10), from one’s parents (2 Tim 1:5), and from one’s teachers (Heb 13:7). Scripture nowhere even suggests that one must discard all other sources of learning and hold “only” to Scripture.
Sola Scriptura is a deceptive doctrine which must have been born of Satan, because with the guise of loving Scripture, one is convinced to disobey the commandments of God recorded therein.
leaving aside differences in interpretation among themselves.
By what authority do you set those differences aside? Scripture doesn’t permit it (Titus 1:9).
Catholics say scripture ‘plus’ tradition.
You have that backwards. Scripture says Traditions, by word and epistle. Scripture is the written form of Tradition (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Pet 20-21).
So here we have 50,000+ Protestant denominations
Correct. The proof is in the pudding. 50,000 plus beliefs. A showcase of confusion. Who is the author of confusion, Joel? Is it God (1 Corinthians 14:33)?
versus just one Catholic who oppose submission to only scripture.
Yes. What does Scripture say? Ephesians 4:5
So Protestants are in majority
If this were a democracy, even that wouldn’t help you. There are many Protestant denominations. But the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has more adherents than all Protestant denominations put together.
and they are right to oppose adding of un-biblical traditions to scripture, as the CC does.
The Catholic Church does not do that Joel. The Protestants do. All I can do is repeat the evidence. It was long ago proven to me, that it is God who causes the growth. If you are not able to receive the Spiritual message, my arguments and words will not convince you (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 6:44).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lolek Pugeda June 30, 2012
To Joel
“Genuine faith in Christ will surely produce a changed life and good works. A person who is truly justified by faith will have good works evident in his/her life. Good works is a product of genuine faith in Christ and not a means of it.”
Exactly! The Catholic church teaches Faith AND good works, NOT Faith OR good works. Which is precisley why Sola Fide is contradictory! How can faith alone save you if you acknowledged that it must INEVITABLY be followed by good works?
Also, The Catholic Church teaches Faith and good works, NOT good works and Faith, because the Church knows that the former must precede the latter.
With the best intentions,
Lolek
Lolek Pugeda June 30, 2012
To Toel
The protestants are not in the majority, their are 1 billion Catholics and only 600 million Protestants. (more or less)
Also, why be satisfied with half of what God intended? Being a Catholic implies that you believe in all God has revealed through out the ages. Being a protestant means you believe only up to the end of revelations. Yes, a protestant is a Christian but if Jesus still loves a muslim then whats the point of him converting to Christianity?
With the best intentions
Lolek
Lolek Pugeda June 30, 2012
ERRATA : Sorry I meant Joel, not Toel.
Lolek Pugeda June 30, 2012
To Joel
Another point, How can you believe the Bible alone as authority, when it was the Catholic church that codified all the books into the single book we recognize today? (I.e. The CC, by the grace of God, recognized all the books which are divinely inspired.)
The Bible didn’t just appear out of nowher, especially since all the books were written in different time periods
With the best intentions,
Lolek
Joel D'souza July 1, 2012
To Lolek Pugeda:
Another point, How can you believe the Bible alone as authority, when it was the Catholic church that codified all the books into the single book we recognize today? (I.e. The CC, by the grace of God, recognized all the books which are divinely inspired.)
What do you mean “Catholic Church codified the books of the Bible?” You mean the CC wrote the Bible?
Joel D'souza July 1, 2012
To Lolek Pugeda: Exactly! The Catholic church teaches Faith AND good works, NOT Faith OR good works. Which is precisley why Sola Fide is contradictory! How can faith alone save you if you acknowledged that it must INEVITABLY be followed by good works?
So the question is : “Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?” Can you produce evidence vis-a-vis what CCC officially teaches and what the scriptures say, are one and the same?
What do you mean “Catholic Church codified the books of the Bible?” You mean the CC wrote the Bible?
The Old Testament Septuagint was written by Jews. It is the version of the Old Testament which Jesus used. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It includes those books which Protestants call “Apocrypha”.
The New Testament was written by Catholics. Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all Catholic Bishops. St. Peter was the first Pope.
The Apostles, however, did not codify the Bible. It was not until the Third Century, that St. Jerome sorted out all the books which were claimed to be canonical and put them in the Latin Vulgate. It is this Latin Vulgate, which the Catholic Church declared canonical in the Council of Trent, 12 Centuries later.
So the question is : “Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?” Can you produce evidence vis-a-vis what CCC officially teaches and what the scriptures say, are one and the same?
I don’t want to make this too long, so please read this..
I’ll try to summarize it this way. You ask: Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?
It’s not a question of either/or; it’s a question of both/and. It is both “faith alone” and “faith plus works”.
Faith plus works is the model which we inherited from the Jews. It can be summarized in the words “keep the Commandments”. (Deuteronomy 7:11; John 14:21).
Faith alone (i.e. faith apart from works) is the Sacramental model. It can be summarized in the words, “Baptism now saves you” (Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21).
In Catholic Teaching, unless one converts from sin and intends to keep the Commandments, one should not be Baptized. (Mark 16:16). In order to show that one understands the nature of sin and the necessity of avoiding it, one must study to show oneself approved (2 Tim 2:15). This is done by undergoing the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA).
Can you produce evidence vis-a-vis what CCC officially teaches and what the scriptures say, are one and the same?
Certainly. The Catholic Church refers all teachings to the Scriptures. In this case, the official teaching on “justification” is from the Council of Trent, session VI.
CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]
If you go to that link and follow the references down to the footnotes, they will indicate which Scripture verse or Catholic doctrine is referred.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'souza July 1, 2012
De Maria:
I’d appreciate you to please refrain from responding to questions I have posed to Lolek Pugeda. Are you the “official” spokesman for everyone?. Your response to the questions I have raised to Lolek Pugeda is not justified, full of errors that are un-biblical.
Joel D'souza July 1, 2012
De Maria:
Your response to faith alone and faith plus works as per the Catholic teaching is in error. The links you have provided conveniently skip certain verse because you did not interpret the book of the Bible as a whole to get its contextual meaning.
On you blog article you quote Galatians 2:16, but you conveniently forgotten to interpret contextually Galatians chapter 3 which is subsequent after chapter 2. Refer to Galatians 3:23-28. It is by faith alone and is applicable to all – Jew or Gentiles.
Also you rely on Romans 2:13, but you conveniently forgot Romans 3:28 – “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28 5:1and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.
I’d appreciate you to please refrain from responding to questions I have posed to Lolek Pugeda.
I apologize if I upset you. The reason I responded is because I have approximately 20 years experience responding to Protestant objections to Catholic doctrine. I have heard almost everyone of them and I have everything bookmarked and ready. Poor Lolek might have to research everything from scratch.
Are you the “official” spokesman for everyone?.
No. But I see no rule against answering all your questions. So, until I am told that I am not permitted to do so, I will. Oh, and I mean by the author of this blog. Steve Ray. Not by you.
Your response to the questions I have raised to Lolek Pugeda is not justified, full of errors that are un-biblical.
Joel, the only one providing unbiblical responses full of errors in these exchanges has been you.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lolek Pugeda July 2, 2012
To Joel:
I don’t mind De Maria speaking for me, after all we defend the same faith. Something I doubt a Protestant-Calvinist would do for you.
Also, The Catholic church codified the Bible in a sense that it was The CC that organized and “united” all the books into the single book we know today. If not for the Catholic church, the protestants would not even know what books to base sola scriptura from.
Second, you need genuine faith which is accompanied by good works, thus you NEED BOTH. In a sense, it’s not choosing between blue or yellow, but rather green, wherein you need both blue AND yellow.
Also, If you reject something just because it’s un-biblical, well here you go,
“As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” James 2:26
Lastly, If you’re an adamant protestant well,
“Reason is the enemy of faith.” – Martin Luther (Founder of protestantism) The same man who divided Faith and good works
Joel D'souza July 2, 2012
De Maria: Poor Lolek might have to research everything from scratch.
That is creme of the pudding. That is why we have the “cradle-Catholic” tag always there. I know i was myself at one time. However we have to learn the hard-way as the devil is always at play. Besides Lolek will not be justified if you spoon feed him you faulty theological views which brain wash him. Steve has been kind to allow these posts for educational purposes. So we better be like the Bereans who diligently searched the truth in scripture.
Joel D'souza July 2, 2012
De Maria:
The Old Testament Septuagint was written by Jews. It is the version of the Old Testament which Jesus used. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It includes those books which Protestants call “Apocrypha”.
This means the RC Church is not the one true church established by Jesus as you have rightly pointed out that it does not use books of the OT which Jesus used but “spurious” ones to support un-biblical teachings. Most likely because of ego problems caused by the reformation.
Joel D'souza July 2, 2012
To Lolek Pugeda:
I don’t mind De Maria speaking for me, after all we defend the same faith. Something I doubt a Protestant-Calvinist would do for you.
It’s easier said than done. Adolph Hitler also brain-washed his Germany army to defend his view what he thought and held was the truth. As far as defending the faith is concerned, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God – Romans 10:17. Faith does not come by abiding in (Dog)mas nor (Catmas).
Also, The Roman Catholic church codified the Bible in a sense that it was The RCC that organized and “united” all the books into the single book we know today. If not for the Catholic church, the protestants would not even know what books to base sola scriptura from.
The early Christians knew which books of the Bible were inspired (part of the canon of scripture), so it doesn’t matter if the RCC went ahead to recognise it and as De Maria rightly pointed out that the CC did not use the Old Testament Jesus used but chose instead to use the Septugiant containing the spurious Deutrocanonical books an act to support its un-biblical doctrines and counter the reformation. Thus the RCC is not the one true Church established by Christ because it does bnot use the Old Testament books used by Christ. In fact the RCC went ahead to codify the books of the Bible just to make a “show of it”. The CC should have called for an ecumenical dialog among the Churches, but it did not do so.
Second, you need genuine faith which is accompanied by good works, thus you NEED BOTH. In a sense, it’s not choosing between blue or yellow, but rather green, wherein you need both blue AND yellow.
I have elaborated here in above on the topic of faith alone or faith plus works. See my post on July 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM.
Lastly, If you’re an adamant protestant well,
“Reason is the enemy of faith.” – Martin Luther (Founder of protestantism) The same man who divided Faith and good works
I am a Bible believing Christian and NOT a protestant because Protestant being ex-Catholics and Catholics are one and the same side of the coin. Luther only rebelled against the papacy because he held to” certain” biblical views. I don’t support Luther either (he too was a heretic) for he broke away from the RCC and brought along with him into the protestant Church several un-biblical practices of the RCC. Call it a massive hangover that happens after a late night booze party.
Thank you! This is what I love. Actual, nitty gritty comparisons to Scripture.
Your response to faith alone and faith plus works as per the Catholic teaching is in error. The links you have provided conveniently skip certain verse because you did not interpret the book of the Bible as a whole to get its contextual meaning.
Let us proceed and see if this assessment of yours is true.
On you blog article you quote Galatians 2:16, but you conveniently forgotten to interpret contextually Galatians chapter 3 which is subsequent after chapter 2. Refer to Galatians 3:23-28. It is by faith alone and is applicable to all – Jew or Gentiles.
Let’s look at that contextually. Let’s take just one more verse. Instead of starting at Gal 3:23, let’s start at Gal. 22-28. Note how he speaks of the faith OF Jesus Christ:
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Faith, like many other words, has many meanings. One of them is “trust”. The other is “religion”.
The faith OF Christ Jesus, THAT faith, is Christianity. Specifically Catholic Christianity. Sacramental Christianity. Wherein, we have faith ALONE in the works of God. The proper disposition for a believer is to have faith, to believe, that God can do what He promised to do. And He promised to renew us in the bath of regeneration that we might walk with the Saints in this life (Titus 3:5; Heb 12:21-24). Yeah, He promised to give us the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and wash away our sins (Acts 22:16). We do nothing, He does it all in the Sacraments. But, unless we keep the Commandments, we are not properly disposed to receive the Sacraments (Rom 2:13).
Also you rely on Romans 2:13, but you conveniently forgot Romans 3:28 – “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”.
Rom 3:28 does not somehow nullify Rom 2:13. They are both true. How can they both be true when they seem to contradict each other? The only way they can both be true is the way the Catholic Church teaches. The Sacrametns JUSTIFY. In order to receive the Sacraments, we must be in a state of grace. In order to be in a state of grace, we must keep the Commandments. The Commandments are the Law. Therefore, DOERS OF THE LAW ARE JUSTIFIED. BY GOD.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28 5:1and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9),
Again, you are doing your best to dispense with many Pauline passages. Foremost among them is Romans 2:1-13. But there are so many that I can’t list them all in this little space. I’ll give you five, that should suffice. Rom 13:10; Gal 5:6; 1 Thess 1:3; Heb 6:10; Heb 10:24
while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18).
THAT IS THE CATHOLIC TEACHING!!! Can Satan have blinded you so much? Faith produces good works. That is faith AND works. Or faith PLUS works. That is the Catholic Teaching. What is your problem?
You need to pray that God may open your eyes to something which Satan has blinded you. You are here explaining Catholic doctrine and at the self same time claiming that it is Protestant doctrine. Whereas, this is precisely what Protestants decry.
James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26).
Catholic doctrine.
James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works,
Yes, he is.
but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life.
Not true. Let us examine James 2:24.
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Wiggle yourself out of that. Twist the Scripture all you want. The only one who will be destroyed is YOU (2 Pet 3:16).
If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Catholic doctrine.
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.
You have misunderstood completely.
Sts. Paul and James both explain salvation by faith and works, which is the keeping of the Commandments (Roman 2:1-13; James 2: 14-24). But St. Paul also goes into detail about salvation by faith apart from works, which only happens in the Sacraments (Romans 3:28; Titus 3:5). St. Mark touched upon it (Mark 16:16), St Peter touched upon it (1 Pet 3:21); St. Luke touched upon it (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). But only St. Paul goes into detail over and over again (Romans 3:28; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5).
That is creme of the pudding. That is why we have the “cradle-Catholic” tag always there. I know i was myself at one time. However we have to learn the hard-way as the devil is always at play. Besides Lolek will not be justified if you spoon feed him you faulty theological views which brain wash him. Steve has been kind to allow these posts for educational purposes. So we better be like the Bereans who diligently searched the truth in scripture.
When will you begin to search the Scriptures? You have been spoon fed by the Protestants and are playing the devil’s game. It is you who are here espousing the faulty theological views of the Protestants.
The Old Testament Septuagint was written by Jews. It is the version of the Old Testament which Jesus used. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It includes those books which Protestants call “Apocrypha”.
You responded: This means the RC Church is not the one true church established by Jesus as you have rightly pointed out that it does not use books of the OT which Jesus used but “spurious” ones to support un-biblical teachings. Most likely because of ego problems caused by the reformation
Read what I said again Joel. The Septuagint is the version of Scripture which Jesus used. And it includes the Deuterocanonicals, which the Protestants call apocryphal because they adopted the view of the enemies of Christ. Yes, the enemies of Christ, the Jews, denied the Deuterocanonicals because they were accepted by Christ.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lolek Pugeda July 2, 2012
To Joel:
Faith does not come by abiding in (Dog)mas nor (Catmas).
That’s not even funny.
The early Christians knew which books of the Bible were inspired
Those early Christians were considered Catholic.
I have elaborated here in above on the topic of faith alone or faith plus works
The answer is Faith plus works. JAMES 2:26
I am a Bible believing Christian and NOT a protestant
Protestants believe in The Bible alone and Faith alone, how are you different?
I don’t support Luther either (he too was a heretic)
Luther believed in Faith alone and that the Bible was the only source of authority.
LASTLY, Tell me where in the Bible does it say Faith alone. NOT about “Faith” or about “alone” but FAITH ALONE?
Lolek said: I don’t mind De Maria speaking for me, after all we defend the same faith. Something I doubt a Protestant-Calvinist would do for you.
And you responded: It’s easier said than done. Adolph Hitler also brain-washed his Germany army to defend his view what he thought and held was the truth. As far as defending the faith is concerned, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God – Romans 10:17. Faith does not come by abiding in (Dog)mas nor (Catmas).
What in the world? Does that make sense to anybody? Joel, that just sounds like Satan inspired invective. Calm down and speak rationally. Lolek made two points which you simply ignored.
1. Because we are Catholic, it is valid that we can speak one for the other.
2. Because you espouse Protestantism, it is doubtful that any other Protestant can speak for you. Because you don’t hold the same faith.
Can you address those points?
Also, The Roman Catholic church codified the Bible in a sense that it was The RCC that organized and “united” all the books into the single book we know today. If not for the Catholic church, the protestants would not even know what books to base sola scriptura from.
The early Christians knew which books of the Bible were inspired (part of the canon of scripture), so it doesn’t matter if the RCC went ahead to recognise it and as De Maria rightly pointed out that the CC did not use the Old Testament Jesus used but chose instead to use the Septugiant containing the spurious Deutrocanonical books an act to support its un-biblical doctrines and counter the reformation.
Jesus used the Septuagint. That is what I pointed out. The reason we use the Septuagint is because Jesus used it.
Thus the RCC is not the one true Church established by Christ because it does bnot use the Old Testament books used by Christ.
Yes, it does. So, if not using the version of the Old Testament proves which is the true Church, you have just proved that the Protestants are not the true Church.
In fact the RCC went ahead to codify the books of the Bible just to make a “show of it”. The CC should have called for an ecumenical dialog among the Churches, but it did not do so.
All the Churches used the Latin Vulgate up until the time of the Protestants. That is a simple fact. Look it up.
Second, you need genuine faith which is accompanied by good works, thus you NEED BOTH. In a sense, it’s not choosing between blue or yellow, but rather green, wherein you need both blue AND yellow.
I have elaborated here in above on the topic of faith alone or faith plus works. See my post on July 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM.
Lol! Who are you? Have you crowned yourself pope? We have debunked all your messages. Go ahead, elaborate some more. And we will debunk you some more.
Lastly, If you’re an adamant protestant well,
“Reason is the enemy of faith.” – Martin Luther (Founder of protestantism) The same man who divided Faith and good works
I am a Bible believing Christian
You CLAIM to believe the Bible. But the Bible does not teach Scripture alone (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:17; 1
Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 13:7; 17). The Bible does not teach faith alone (Rom 2:1-13; Gal 5:6; Rev 22:12-15).
and NOT a protestant because Protestant being ex-Catholics and Catholics are one and the same side of the coin.
Hm? Tell the truth. Didn’t you claim to be an ex-Catholic? You said, and I quote: That is why we have the “cradle-Catholic” tag always there. I know i was myself at one time.
Are you an ex-Catholic or not?
Luther only rebelled against the papacy because he held to” certain” biblical views.
Because he held to certain biblical errors.
I don’t support Luther either (he too was a heretic) for he broke away from the RCC and brought along with him into the protestant Church several un-biblical practices of the RCC. Call it a massive hangover that happens after a late night booze party.
YOU are still suffering from theta hangover.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'Souza July 3, 2012
De Maria: Read what I said again Joel. The Septuagint is the version of Scripture which Jesus used
Another contradiction and a lie. Jesus never used the Septuagint. Mathew 5:18 (KJV) states otherwise.
Your argument for the Septuagint collapses like a pack of cards. The NABRE even mutilates Matthew 5:18 beyond recognition, because all Catholic Bibles are powered by the same corrupted Alexandrian codices.
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:
“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Luke 24:44.
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!.
And yes, of course Christ was literate, read the things he said and you will clearly see.
The type of Jesus that established the one true Roman Catholic church is a counterfeit Jesus and not the true Biblical Jesus. In fact it is the false prophet called Bar-Jesus found in Acts 13:6.
Joel D'Souza July 3, 2012
To Lolek Pugeda:
To Joel
Do you believe that adam and eve existed?
That is the question you must first ask your pope (John Paull II and Benedict XIV). They have repeatedly stated in the press that Genesis was a “myth” and are open to scientific data on the origins of man. They would really do justice to themselves if they follow http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.creationtoday.org/.
Lolek Pugeda July 3, 2012
To De Maria:
I doubt Joel would read your entire post, which is why he would probably pose the same questions and arguments.
Lolek Pugeda July 3, 2012
To Joel
What church do you even belong to? That is assuming everyone in your church holds the same interpretation of every biblical verse.
Lolek Pugeda July 3, 2012
To Joel:
You did not answer my question do YOU believe adam and eve existed?
Lolek Pugeda July 3, 2012
To Joel:
You did not answer my question, do YOU believe adam and eve existed?
Lolek Pugeda July 3, 2012
To Joel:
If you take the bible literally, then do tell me, where is the dome up in the sky separating the the upper waters from the lower waters (i.e. the oceans)
You said: Another contradiction and a lie. Jesus never used the Septuagint. Mathew 5:18 (KJV) states otherwise.
Your argument for the Septuagint collapses like a pack of cards. The NABRE even mutilates Matthew 5:18 beyond recognition, because all Catholic Bibles are powered by the same corrupted Alexandrian codices.
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:….
Really? Do you think, that I said, that because the Old Testament was written in Greek, Jesus did not also use the Hebrew? Or do you think, that because the Old Testament existed in Hebrew, that Jesus did not also use the Greek?
Why would He use one only? Did He not encounter people who spoke only Greek and people who spoke only Aramaic and people who spoke only Hebrew?
Certainly, Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures. Why not!? But He also used the Septuagint Scriptures. And that is easily proven:
….Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus….
See this website for more proof that Jesus used The Septuagint
That is the question you must first ask your pope (John Paull II and Benedict XIV). They have repeatedly stated in the press that Genesis was a “myth” and are open to scientific data on the origins of man. They would really do justice to themselves if they follow http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.creationtoday.org/.
Joel, please make coherent arguments. Please quote that which you claim the Pope’s said, in context, so that we can make out to what you are objecting.
You said: I doubt Joel would read your entire post, which is why he would probably pose the same questions and arguments.
I agree. But also, he needs to get past his presuppositions. He is still arguing with that which he thinks the Catholic Church teaches. Not with that which the Catholic Church actually teaches.
And he still believes that the doctrines he holds are in the Bible. But the doctrines which he holds are not in the Bible.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'souza July 4, 2012
De Maria:
Some dosier on the Septuagint
If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here’s how the legend goes:
The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.
The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.
In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.
Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and “miraculously” wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves “divine inspiration” of the entire Septuagint.
Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?
The verifiable facts:
The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus’ reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.
The supposed “librarian,” Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.
The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his “naval victory over Antigonus” (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!
The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn’t even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.
New Testament Evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:
“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find “original readings” that were supposedly “lost from the Hebrew”?.
Roman Catholics Need It
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:
“…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God” —Preface,1914 edition.
So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!
Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That’s right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!
In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.
So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.
Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.
We Don’t Need It
But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.
So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.
If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here’s how the legend goes:….
Obviously, you don’t care for the Septuagint. And you want to convince me that the Septuagint is not worth the paper upon which it is written. Fair enough. Let me explain something to you. You have given me a choice. I should believe YOU. Or I can believe the Church about which Scripture says:
1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10
I’m not going to ask you. I’ll ask the readers. Whom do you believe? Joel, a man who admits he is fallible. Or the Church which Scripture describes as infallible?
I’ll tell you who I believe. The Catholic Church.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joel D'souza July 6, 2012
Hello De Maria ..:
I’ll tell you who I believe. The Catholic Church.
What I find truly amazing about you is you have the audacity to even brush aside what Jesus the Son of the living God incarnate in the flesh said in Matthew 5:18 explicitly. Instead you preferred to believe wholeheartedly on the article written by a woman and posted on http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.html.
Now i really don’t know what you believe in the Catholic church, when a Church is supposed to be a pillar of truth and be a shining beacon for the ordinary faithful. Many times I day-dream on remembering fondly former greats US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who always stood for the truth’s in the Bible. I am sure will remember their famous quotes without a shadow of doubt. These men were truly geniuses the world has ever know,
God Bless you and all who have been readings the posts.
You said: What I find truly amazing about you is you have the audacity to even brush aside what Jesus the Son of the living God incarnate in the flesh said in Matthew 5:18 explicitly.
I believe and accept Matt 5:18. Here is what Matt 5:18 says:
Matthew 5:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That says nothing about the Greek Septuagint unless someone twists it completely out of context and forces their own agenda into it.
Here’s what I find amazing about you. You have the audacity to claim to believe in the Bible, but when the Bible says, “hold the Traditions” (2 Thess 2:15), you say, “Scripture Alone!”. And when the Bible says, “not by faith only” (James 2:24), you say, “Faith Alone!”. When the Bible says, “according to their works” (Rev 22:12-15), you say “not according to their works”. And many other things we have shown that you force your Protestant agenda into the Word of God, twisting it completely out of context.
Instead you preferred to believe wholeheartedly on the article written by a woman
You have something against believing in the Trinity?
The article which I posted showed that the Jews took offense at Jesus and altered their Hebrew Scriptures in order to void some of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming of the Messiah. But I guess that doesn’t make any difference to you. You would rather take the side of the enemies of Christ than the side of the Church which Christ established.
Now i really don’t know what you believe in the Catholic church, when a Church is supposed to be a pillar of truth and be a shining beacon for the ordinary faithful. Many times I day-dream on remembering fondly former greats US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who always stood for the truth’s in the Bible. I am sure will remember their famous quotes without a shadow of doubt. These men were truly geniuses the world has ever know,
Sure. But I follow Christ through the Church He established to teach what He Commanded (Matt 28:19-20
God Bless you and all who have been readings the posts.
And you as well.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lloyd Montifalcon July 10, 2012
Thanks very much Mr.Steve Ray and De Maria for defending our faith from the attacks of those who are confused by the devil.
PoorKnight August 29, 2012
De Maria – GOD BLESS YOU! (God Bless Joel and everyone else too)
I’m a “wanna be” apologist and your back-and-forth with Joel was truely informative and inspiring. From some other converts and apologists I’ve read about Protestants 5 ‘D’s when it comes to Catholic teaching (Downplay, Distract, Disperage, Deceive (as in, mis-represent the Catholic position) and I forget the last one). I just “watched” (er, um read?) Joel go through all of them. I also “watched” you call him on all of them plus some! WOW!
God Bless you all, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
PoorKnight for Christ (and His Church)
This Post Has 102 Comments
I became a Christian from being an atheist about 18 months ago. Sola Scriptural seem like something so self evident it didn’t need to be codified.
If your faith isn’t based on that clearly in scripture and solely scripture, surely heresies like, indulgences can enter the fray.
*scriptura, iPad spell check got me!
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, since it is not taught in the Bible, refutes itself.
Since joining a Baptist Church I’ve been taught that The reformation happened as there was a need to leave the Catholic Church in the 16th century due to; corruption in the Church, infidelity on the part of the Pope and a general belief that Catholic practice had moved away the reality of personal relationship with God, amongst other reasons. So Sola Scriptura was a logical conclusion of what to base the foundation of a new Church on, not a revelatory conclusion.
Actually, to me this isn’t a convincing argument. In theory, sola scriptura might not be able to provide the full revelation of Tradition, but it could provide enough for salvation.
The theory would only work, however, if there were only a handful of denominations with nearly identical doctrines, and those doctrines did not change in the 500 years since the Protestant Revolution. If these were true, sola scriptura might well be true even if it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
In practice, neither of these are true. In particular Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and even Zwingli wouldn’t be able to recognize most Churches that claim them as their founders and would denounce many of their doctrines.
*That* is the achilles heal of sola scriptura. If for the sake of example Presbyterians of 1900 would denounce as heretical the open communion, “any Church is okay as long as its Christian”, “contraception is a positive good”, “divorce and remarriage are okay”, “rapture theology”, …. of the typical modern Presbyterian church, then its clear that sola scriptura isn’t even able to preserve a denomination, much less lead to the “blessed assurance” of knowing you have “the right understanding” of scripture, and thus knowledge of what we need to be saved.
I have an open mind on Catholicism. Being a new Christian an having converted from atheism I’m open, I have an open mind, obviously a denominational change is a smaller move in belief. However, it seems clear to me from reading the Gospels that according to Jesus been saved consists of believing in Him in word and mind, loving God and neighbor, repenting, baptism and a few other requirements. None of them denomination specific.
So when a Catholic says, essentially, only Catholics go to heaven I have to roll my eyes. I can’t write more at the moment but your post is interesting.
Hi Jeremy,
I became a Christian from being an atheist about 18 months ago. Sola Scriptural seem like something so self evident it didn’t need to be codified.
But Sola Scriptura says that if it isn’t codified, it isn’t valid.
If your faith isn’t based on that clearly in scripture and solely scripture, surely heresies
That’s what we are trying to tell you. Please provide the teaching of Sola Scriptura in Scripture. It isn’t there. Therefore, it is a heresy. It contradicts Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
like, indulgences can enter the fray.
According to Protestants, indulgences are used in order that one may pay their way into heaven.
This is what Jesus says about that:
Mark 10:21?Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Since joining a Baptist Church I’ve been taught ….
You’ve heard on side of the story. Now learn the truth. Come to the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Studying the history of the reformation, it seems to me people were completely fed up with what Catholicism was at the time. In many ways a political and financial institution, acting as a weight on them and corrupt and scandal ridden.
Fed up people said we want to re-establish a Church based on what Jesus said using the Bible put together by the Church they were leaving as the basis.
For me I don’t see how this point on Sola Scriptura not being clearly defined in the Bible is a crushing blow given the historic circumstances. Logic leeds in one in their situation in the direction they went. For example, a book of math proofs is a perfectly legitimate thing to base your belief in the truth of math on. But no math proof is ever going to prove math is a source of truth. That math is a source of truth must be presupposed. The Bible is the same, in fact if the truth of the Bible is presupposed Christianity becomes a nonsense. The difference between math and the Bible of course is no new revelation of truth is going to be added to the Bible. Knowing it is complete and a source of truth, it then becomes completely logical to base your belief on it solely.
*in fact if te truth of the Bible is NOT presupposed.
Not the iPad’s fault that time!
So, believing a doctrine that only doctrines taught in the Bible–a doctrine which is NOT taught in the Bible–should be believed despite the fact that it contradicts itself is logical?
How are we to reliably trust the teachings of men especially if they have a pedophile nature. Surely they will not have the in-dwelling Holy Spirit but a familiar spirit that will guide them to provide faulty teachings not on line with scripture.
Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”
So Sola scriptura is the only surest passport to heaven. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to “traditions” of teachings taught by the Apostles and passed down from generation to generation and is not to be confused by the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Carholic Church. They are not one and the same.
Hi Jeremy,
You said,
Studying the history of the reformation, it seems to me people were completely fed up with what Catholicism was at the time.
Then they were fed up with the Wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10).
In many ways a political and financial institution, acting as a weight on them and corrupt and scandal ridden.
Jesus Himself said that the weeds would be amongst the wheat to the end (Matt 13:30). Yet, He still established the Church and said that it would not succumb to the Gates of Hell (Matt 16:18).
Fed up people said we want to re-establish a Church based on what Jesus said using the Bible put together by the Church they were leaving as the basis.
Because they have cast aside the institution which Christ built (Matt 16:18; Heb 13:17) and substituted themselves as authority over God’s word (Eph 2:2).
For me I don’t see how this point on Sola Scriptura not being clearly defined in the Bible is a crushing blow given the historic circumstances. Logic leeds in one in their situation in the direction they went. For example, a book of math proofs is a perfectly legitimate thing to base your belief in the truth of math on. But no math proof is ever going to prove math is a source of truth. That math is a source of truth must be presupposed. The Bible is the same, in fact if the truth of the Bible is presupposed Christianity becomes a nonsense. The difference between math and the Bible of course is no new revelation of truth is going to be added to the Bible. Knowing it is complete and a source of truth, it then becomes completely logical to base your belief on it solely.
The problem is that you are not relying upon the Bible. You are relying upon YOUR interpretation of the Bible and casting aside that Institution which Jesus built and which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Hi Joel,
How are we to reliably trust the teachings of men especially if they have a pedophile nature.
You’ll have to tell me. We don’t have any teachings of men. And there are just as many pedophiles in your church as there are anywhere else. So, tell me how YOU rely upon them. We don’t.
Surely they will not have the in-dwelling Holy Spirit but a familiar spirit that will guide them to provide faulty teachings not on line with scripture.
You know better than I. Since you follow the men who have insulted the Holy Spirit (Heb 10:25-31).
Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”
Is this the same man who said, “If the wife is unwilling, let the maid come!”???
You might want to get your faith advice from someone who understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ a little better than the man who advised adultery.
So Sola scriptura is the only surest passport to heaven.
It is a passport to disobedience and disobedience a passport to eternal punishment:
Ephesians 5:6
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to “traditions” of teachings taught by the Apostles and passed down from generation to generation and is not to be confused by the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Carholic Church. They are not one and the same.
Yeah, they are. It is Sola Scriptura which is the heresy contradicting the Word of God.
Do you believe that De Maria, that Baptists will reach the throne of God and God will ask, “Did you love Me? Did you love your neighbor? Did you follow My commands? Where you Baptised?”
“Yes Lord, I did all things to the best of my ability”
“Well done my good and faithful servant but too bad you weren’t Catholic off to hell with you”
POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
1) The reformation was a product of a totally different time period, thus a question I would like to raise is why are the Protestants still “protesting”, when the sale of indulgences ended over 400 years ago?ANSWER: Because the protestants are as much caught up to the traditions of anti-catholicism as we ,Catholics, are to the holy traditions of the Church.
2) Why should we trust the current Church when it had a corrupt past?
ANSWER: The same reason why we can trust current Germany despite its Nazi past.
3) If the Bible is the only form of authority, then who will lead the illiterate?
ANSWER: The ordained. The bible was meant to be dissiminated among the people through legitimate clergymen ordained through the apostolic sacrament. (see #4 for support)
4) If the holy Eucharist and Baptism are the only legitmate sacraments, then who will administer them?
ANSWER: That’s why we have the sacrament of holy orders.
5) Why should we follow the opinion of the Pope on the gospels?
ANSWER: It’s not an opinion, it’s a product of over 1800 years of constructive analysis of the Bible. Thus its Theology.
6) Why can’t women be priests?
ANSWER: The same reason why men can’t be nuns. (Adding that being a nun is as much a privilege as being a priest.)
Hi Jeremy,
Do you believe that De Maria, that Baptists will reach the throne of God and God will ask, “Did you love Me? Did you love your neighbor? Did you follow My commands? Where you Baptised?”
Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremeeeee. God won’t ask any questions. Have you not read Matt 25:31-45? God will tell you what you good you did and what good you did not do. And only those who did the will of God on this earth will enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 7:21).
“Yes Lord, I did all things to the best of my ability”
There will be no need for us to say a word. There will be no pop quiz, no multiple choice test. We might ask questions of God.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
How many times have you read the Scripture Jeremy? Or is that one of those that you consider surpasseed?
“Well done my good and faithful servant but too bad you weren’t Catholic off to hell with you”
I think He will say that to you. He’ll say, “Jeremy, too bad you didn’t listen to Ray and all my messengers that I sent to tell you about the Catholic Church. You would have saved yourelf a lot of suffering in Purgatory.” ; )
“…too bad you weren’t Catholic off to hell with you.”
Jeremy, the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. If you are going to criticize the Church, atleast find out from Catholic sources what she teaches and why.
De Maria:
You’ll have to tell me. We don’t have any teachings of men. And there are just as many pedophiles in your church as there are anywhere else. So, tell me how YOU rely upon them. We don’t.
By your comment it shows you are plainly irked at my comment because my comment was in generalization at not targeting a specific denomination. You have revealed the weakness of the Catholic Church. Therefore i must say this: “If the cap suits you, then by all means wear it”.
I am now a Baptist. I have been an ex-Catholic myself and I know I am writing of the things I know about and lived with.
Hi Joel ,
You said:
By your comment it shows you are plainly irked at my comment
That is true.
because my comment was in generalization at not targeting a specific denomination.
Ha, ha, ha! I was born yesterday, but I wasn’t born last night. Let me put it like this. Riiiiiiight.
You have revealed the weakness of the Catholic Church.
??? If you perceive a weakness in me, why do you then apply it to the Catholic Church? Are your weaknesses all applicable to your Protestant upbringing?
Therefore i must say this: “If the cap suits you, then by all means wear it”.
But I see that the cap fits you best. So, it is yours to wear.
I am now a Baptist. I have been an ex-Catholic myself and I know I am writing of the things I know about and lived with.
I was ex-Catholic for 15 years of my life. Then God opened my eyes to the truth of the Catholic Church and I returned as quick as I could. I hope that God, one day opens your eyes as well.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I’ve brought the One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong to give Catholocisim a fair shake. I’ll visit a Mass as well.
*catholicism, sorry!
St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatian church because, after his departure, ravening wolves (anti-sola scriptura) moved in, who perverted Paul’s Gospel of man’s free justification by faith in Christ Jesus.
The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth.
To Joel:
So your part of the baptist church? Which one? The westboro, new birth missionary, etc? I’m sorry its just that there are SO many!
To Joel:
So your part of a baptist church? Which one? The westboro, new birth missionary, etc? I’m sorry it’s just that there are SO many!
Hi Joel,
St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatian church because, after his departure, ravening wolves (anti-sola scriptura) moved in, who perverted Paul’s Gospel of man’s free justification by faith in Christ Jesus.
That statement is proof of why Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. You, Joel, a sola scripturist adherent, feel free to add to Scripture. Now, if you don’t believe me, show me where these “ravening wolves” are described as being “anti-sola scriptura”?
It’s not there. You added that to Scripture.
The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world.
Amen.
Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth.
That is also true. But what you don’t recognize is that you, in attacking the doctrines of the Catholic Church, join those who attack the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Jeremy,
I’ve brought the One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong to give Catholocisim a fair shake. I’ll visit a Mass as well.
Good for you!
Great back and forth on this one but it all comes down to this…
1. Jesus established a Church on the Apostles, a Church to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth.
2. The Apostolic orders were to continue in succession, otherwise the Apostles would have never replaced Judas. This much is clear from anyone who picks up any of the writings from the disciples of the Apostles (Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, etc).
3. It is clear that the early Church was unified in its belief in the Real Presence, Communion of Saints, adherence to the Bishop as the institution of Christ, and other Catholic doctrines that Protestants no longer adhere to.
4. The Church came before the Bible. If the Church included the Apostles, Mark, Luke and whomever truly wrote Hebrews, then it follows that the Church gave us the Bible not the other way around. Protestants think that true churches are founded on the Bible. I guess this would exclude any pre-fourth century church.
5. Even Protestant scholars agree that the father of the new testament canon is St. Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop in the mid-fourth century. (Important fact for Joel to digest since he thinks Paul wrote Galatians to combat sola-scriptura. What scripture Joel?)
6. The new “testament” is a latin rooted word that simply means “covenant”. What does Jesus say the new “testament” is? Not a list of books, rather he refers to the new testament as his Blood as instituted in the Eucharist (Matthew 26:28). According to the New Testament, the New Testament was a Sacrament long before it was a list of books.
7. If Jesus promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that nothing would prevail against it until the end of time, the ONLY Church this can possibly refer to unless you are historically ignorant is the Catholic Church. In the first few centuries of Christianity, one of the early Church Fathers quipped: the Catholic Church is everywhere but united as one body; all of the heretical sects are likewise everywhere but divided and the only thing they are united against is their hatred of the Catholic Church which is the truth.
You can hate the Church all you want, but it is the only Church that was there at the beginning and still standing 2,000 years later.
Corey:
You will have to give a clear definition of what a “Church” really means and whether the definition attributes to the same as laid out in the New Testament. Also does it mean “Church” = Catholic Church is also = Roman Catholic Church? What i see here very slyly and subtly, “Church” and “Catholic Church” are used interchangeably for ulterior motives.
Keep in mind according to the scriptures that the first Church was a Christian Church at Antioch and the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch as per Acts 11:26. You will not find a single verse in the Bible that explicitly has the the words “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Because Christ, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity are deeply related to each other.
Lolek Pugeda:
POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
1) The reformation was a product of a totally different time period, thus a question I would like to raise is why are the Protestants still “protesting”, when the sale of indulgences ended over 400 years ago?
I am quite sure that I cannot be wrong, but the current pope very recently announced that Catholics could buy indulgences if they not able to make the trip to one of the Marian shrines.
I must say you are still asleep and not aware of what is happening around you. That’s why I pity you gotta “Cradle-catholic” tag hanging around you neck.
So your part of the baptist church? Which one? The westboro, new birth missionary, etc? I’m sorry its just that there are SO many
Do you have a problem if there are so many?. And what makes you say One has the truth while the SO many are liars and will go to Hell???
Exactly where did Lolek Pugeda say that “…while the SO many are liars and will go to Hell???”
De Maria:
That is also true. But what you don’t recognize is that you, in attacking the doctrines of the Catholic Church, join those who attack the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I attack only doctrines of the Catholic church that are in not in agreement with scripture. Lets not pretend there isn’t contentious issues. You have to accept the fact that there are discrepancies existing. If the Catholic church says Scripture plus Tradition .. – why can’t they be in harmony instead of contradictory? For e.g. The Catholic Church says Mary assumed bodily into heaven. However It is not supported in scripture. The result: I cannot obey what the Catholic Church teaches in its traditions but only what the scripture teaches. In this case I treat scripture as authority above in issue stated.
Bill912:
it is obviously implied.
One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong to give Catholocisim a fair shake.
I converted to the Catholic Church in 1997 and I did a year of research and study on the Catholic Church before I came in. I read the arguments of James White, William Webster, Dave Hunt, Robert Zins to name a few. I don’t think just reading a basic book by Dave Armstrong gives a fair shot to Catholocisim at all.
I don’t think just reading a basic book by Dave Armstrong gives a fair shot to Catholocisim at all.
Well, to be honest I’d rather put my effort into reading the Bible and words of Jesus. I’ll read a book of basic arguments by one of the leading modern Catholic Apologists and if not convinced I’ll put my effort in the Bible, to revisit the issue of denominations after my understand of Jesus and faith has grown.
Hi Joel,
You said,
You will have to give a clear definition of what a “Church” really means
It is the Corporation (body of Christ) which Christ founded. He set upon it a Chairman and 11 officers to guide it at its foundation (Matt 16:18; Rev 21:14). And He gave this Church authority to discipline its members (Matt 18:17).
and whether the definition attributes to the same as laid out in the New Testament.
Sure does.
Also does it mean “Church” = Catholic Church is also = Roman Catholic Church? What i see here very slyly and subtly, “Church” and “Catholic Church” are used interchangeably for ulterior motives.
The Catholic Church is the Church described in Scripture.
The Church in Scripture has a Shepherd assigned by Christ (John 21:17), has authority (Matt 18:17), is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10), passes on Tradition (2 Thess 2:15), condemns faith alone (James 2:17), preaches the Sacraments (Mark 16:16), offers the Eucharist (John 6:51), etc. etc.
Not one Protestant Church has all those attributes.
Keep in mind according to the scriptures that the first Church was a Christian Church at Antioch and the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch as per Acts 11:26.
That is where member of Christ Church were first called Christians. That is not where the Church was established.
You will not find a single verse in the Bible that explicitly has the the words “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Because Christ, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity are deeply related to each other.
However, you will find the attributes and doctrines of the Church described. And they are all Catholic.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel and Lolek,
Lolek said:
1) The reformation was a product of a totally different time period, thus a question I would like to raise is why are the Protestants still “protesting”, when the sale of indulgences ended over 400 years ago?
Joel responded:
I am quite sure that I cannot be wrong, but the current pope very recently announced that Catholics could buy indulgences if they not able to make the trip to one of the Marian shrines.
Indulgences continue to be provided by the Catholic Church. It is a true doctrine established by Jesus Christ:
Luke 11:41
But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
There is however, a wrong way to manage this practice. This is partially illustrated in Scripture (Acts 8:17-19).
The unlawful use of indulgences has been condemned and in fact, has never been permitted. Those who unlawfully offered them in olden times have paid for their offense.
I must say you are still asleep and not aware of what is happening around you. That’s why I pity you gotta “Cradle-catholic” tag hanging around you neck.
And we pity you. May God forgive you your Pharisaic attitude.
Joel, you said:
Do you have a problem if there are so many?.
You should too (Ephesians 4:5).
And what makes you say One has the truth while the SO many are liars and will go to Hell???
Scripture says so (1 Tim 3:15; 4:1; 4:16; and Matthew 7:13-15).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Jeremy,
Well, to be honest I’d rather put my effort into reading the Bible and words of Jesus. I’ll read a book of basic arguments by one of the leading modern Catholic Apologists and if not convinced I’ll put my effort in the Bible, to revisit the issue of denominations after my understand of Jesus and faith has grown.
Rightly understood, the Bible will lead you to the Catholic Church. There’s an excellent Bible Study here..
You’ll find that Catholic Theology is by far the most systematic and logical of any other. And by far the most Biblical.
Sincerely,
De Maria
“Bill912
it is obviously implied”
No, you put words in his mouth. Putting words in another’s mouth is a form of lying.
“Rightly understood, the Bible will lead you to the Catholic Church. There’s an excellent Bible Study here..”
That is an excellent one De Maria. Here is another one Jeremy that is very good.
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/index.html
To Joel:
I didn’t say that others are going to hell, its your fellow baptists who are saying it (I.e. Westboro)
De Maria:
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Joel: You said “you will not find a single verse in the Bible that explicitly has the the words “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Because Christ, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity are deeply related to each other.” I understand what you are saying and don’t disagree that all Christians have some truth and are deeply related. However, a lie becomes stronger when mixed with truth. Having part of the truth does not imply that all paths are equal. I think you would agree with that. We are all called to be of the same mind and remain united as one body (1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2, Ephesians 4:3, Romans 15:6). But one can hardly say that all Christians are united. We can only agree that we are all united to a lesser degree. If I were to poll even Protestants and ask what are the minimum set of beliefs are for salvation, you will get wildly different opinions in the over 34,000 different denominations that now exist as a consequence of the reformation.
Jesus gave the Apostles unprecedented power (Matthew 18:18). He instructed them to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe ALL that He commanded (Matthew 28:19-20) and this includes sacred Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). Not some, not a little, not just what you want to follow or deem important. With the reformation came the view that absolute truth and salvation comes mostly from a few commands in the Bible (love and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior). But believing in Christ while refusing to conform one’s life to ALL that he commands is a lie (1 John 1:4-6, James 2:19). Peter even warns that the lawless will twist the words of Paul to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-17). So then what is the outcome?
As the late Bishop Fulton Sheen once said, “if you don’t live what you believe, you will end up believing what you live”. This is the only natural outcome of disunity and rejection of authority. I choose a lifestyle and hold that it doesn’t matter what I do since I am once saved, always saved. The pastor tells me I’m doing something wrong, I just go find a church that teaches otherwise. There are over 34k to choose from. This is what I call “billboard Christianity”. Drive down any stretch of highway and you’ll find billboard after billboard of churches claiming to have the truth. The problem is that with such a broad view of Christianity as Protestants hold, moral relativism sets in and the “customer” ends up being the one with the power to define what they believe to be the truth.
To Joel:
You typed that its “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
The problem with protestants is that they assume that the Catholic church would rob the people of their free will to interpret the bible, but if their is ONE God then logically there has to be ONE interpretation. The Catholic church can lay just claim on it because it’s foundation is Jesus’ blessing on Caesarea Philippi. Remember the first protestant church broke away FROM the Catholic church, meaning they deviated from the path intended rather than establish the path.
Hi Jeremy,
Well, to be honest I’d rather put my effort into reading the Bible and words of Jesus. I’ll read a book of basic arguments by one of the leading modern Catholic Apologists and if not convinced I’ll put my effort in the Bible, to revisit the issue of denominations after my understand of Jesus and faith has grown.
Rightly understood, the Bible will lead you to the Catholic Church. There’s an excellent Bible Study here..
You’ll find that Catholic Theology is by far the most systematic and logical of any other. And by far the most Biblical.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Sorry for the duplicate. It didn’t seem to take last night, so I simply came back and submitted it again this morning. Only to discover that it was already there.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Lolek Pugeda
To Joel:
I didn’t say that others are going to hell, its your fellow baptists who are saying it (I.e. Westboro)
To Joel:
You typed that its “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
That is Official teachings of the Catholic Church. The CC also teaches that ONLY those baptised as babies in the CC will enjoy eternal bliss. What about Muslim, Budshist babies will go Hell?
De Maria:
Indulgences continue to be provided by the Catholic Church. It is a true doctrine established by Jesus Christ: Luke 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
Yeah i know .. its funny how you can buy your relatives out of “purgatory” and say Jesus approves it in luke 11:41. Just pop-in the coins into the coffer and your relatives will simply pop-out into eternal bliss. With the result Jesus went to the cross of no use.
Hi Joel,
Yeah i know .. its funny how you can buy your relatives out of “purgatory” and say Jesus approves it in luke 11:41. Just pop-in the coins into the coffer and your relatives will simply pop-out into eternal bliss.
1. I don’t remember saying any such thing.
2. However, I do remember proving that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE (1 Tim 3:15; 2 Thess 2:15; James 2:17; Romans 2:13; etc.)
3. As for indulgences, Luke 11:41 is one of the verses upon which we stand to support the doctrine of indulgences which is implied in Scripture. I you ever bothered to look, Scripture also says:
Treasure in heaven-Mark 12:43; Matt 6:20; 13:52; 19:21; Luke 12:33; Luke 18:22
Parent’s prayers save their children-Matthew 15:28; 17:15; Mark 9:21-27; Luke 9:38-42
Friend’s prayer save their friends-Matt 8:8; 9:2
Therefore the Teaching of Indulgences is strongly implied in Scripture. Whereas the Protestant doctrines not only absent, but contradict the Word of God.
With the result Jesus went to the cross of no use.
It is because Jesus went to the Cross and died for our sins, that we are now permitted to approach the Throne of God and through the Sacraments, be washed in His Blood (Matt 26:28; Heb 10:29).
Sincerely,
De Maria
To Joel:
Tell me where you got your information that only baptized Catholics go to heaven. (Remember it has to be an AUTHENTICALLY Catholic personage.)
Here’s mine
“As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1261
Also, you ask me if Muslim and Buddhist children will go to heaven? They could even considering that most have NOT even read the scriptures nor believe in it. While, Catholicism says that scripture and tradition are two inter-related means to live a WHOLESOME Christian life (Assuming you’re Christian.)
Scripture alone would seem sufficient but lacking, thus, to be WHOLLY Christian you need both. Understand also that dogmas and tradition are an extension of God’s will in the contemporary era.
Lastly, you didn’t really answer my question. You typed that it was “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
To Lolek Pugeda:
One Roman Catholic tradition names a limbo for children who die before their baptisms or die outside of the Roman Catholic religion. Ir is removed from the CCC after Ratzinger became pope. There is no biblical support for this view, however. It is merely a religious opinion (not official Catholic teaching) which has been handed down by Catholic theologians. Read the document http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/salvatio.htm especially what the popes infallibly stated on Salvation outside the Catholic Church and other issues.
The closest biblical account for a “limbo” concerns “Abraham’s bosom” and “paradise” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Although it is a parable to teach a truth concerning prophecies declaring the kingdom of God, the places mentioned must exist or Jesus would not have used them. Parables are not based upon imaginary objects and locations, but on things which are real. So before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there were two places souls went upon death. One place is at the side of Abraham (often described as Abraham’s bosom); this would be for people who died in faith in God’s promised Messiah, just as Abraham did, and were declared righteous by faith (Genesis 15:4-6; Romans 4:13-24). Those who died in unbelief went to a place of torment. The Greek word used is hades and probably is the best Greek word for the Jewish sheol, literally “the lowest pit.” It is clearly a place of great torment.
But this is also a temporary limbo. These souls will appear at the second resurrection before the great white throne of Revelation 20:11-13. These people are not in the Book of Life because they do not have eternal life through faith in Christ, and they are cast into their final destination in the “Lake of Fire / Gehenna.” The idea of limbo as a realm in between heaven and hell, sort of another purgatory, is not biblical. If there is any sort of a limbo, it is the temporary holding place of the wicked (Hades / Sheol), which will eventually be emptied into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).
Lastly, you didn’t really answer my question. You typed that it was “obviously implied”, is that the method by which you interpret the bible?
The tone of your post dated implied that “..Being SO many” – implied worthless and without truth and also what the popes infallibly taught.
Joel,
You said to Lolek Pugeda:
One Roman Catholic tradition names a limbo for children who die before their baptisms or die outside of the Roman Catholic religion. Ir is removed from the CCC after Ratzinger became pope. There is no biblical support for this view, however. It is merely a religious opinion (not official Catholic teaching) which has been handed down by Catholic theologians.
You’ve answered your own question. It is a theological opinion.
Read the document http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/salvatio.htm especially what the popes infallibly stated on Salvation outside the Catholic Church and other issues.
I go by what the Church teaches:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
The closest biblical account for a “limbo” concerns “Abraham’s bosom” and “paradise” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).
But didn’t you just deny that Limbo existed?
Although it is a parable to teach a truth concerning prophecies declaring the kingdom of God, the places mentioned must exist or Jesus would not have used them.
There you go. Limbo is the same as Purgatory.
Parables are not based upon imaginary objects and locations, but on things which are real.
Here are the other things which are real in that account.
1. The Saints speak.
2. The Saints are aware of the people on earth.
3. The Saints recognize the authority of other Saints.
4. The Saints are concerned for the welfare of their brethren on earth.
5. The Saints care for each other in the afterlife and have a relationship.
So before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there were two places souls went upon death. One place is at the side of Abraham (often described as Abraham’s bosom); this would be for people who died in faith in God’s promised Messiah, just as Abraham did, and were declared righteous by faith (Genesis 15:4-6; Romans 4:13-24).
God doesn’t change. Those places continue to exist to this day. At the Judgement, they will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
Those who died in unbelief went to a place of torment. The Greek word used is hades and probably is the best Greek word for the Jewish sheol, literally “the lowest pit.” It is clearly a place of great torment.
Yes. A temporary place of great torment. Purgatory is the other name for it.
But this is also a temporary limbo. These souls will appear at the second resurrection before the great white throne of Revelation 20:11-13. These people are not in the Book of Life because they do not have eternal life through faith in Christ, and they are cast into their final destination in the “Lake of Fire / Gehenna.”
Correct. They do not have eternal life through faith in Christ because they either did not have enough faith to submit t Baptism. Or if they did submit to Baptism, they did not believe in it (Mark 16:16). Therefore, they are not written in the book of life, unless they labored for the Kingdom of God and kept the Ten Commandments.
The idea of limbo as a realm in between heaven and hell, sort of another purgatory, is not biblical.
You just proved that it is.
If there is any sort of a limbo, it is the temporary holding place of the wicked (Hades / Sheol), which will eventually be emptied into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).
It is also a temporary holding place for the righteous. As you proved.
The tone of your post dated implied that “..Being SO many” – implied worthless and without truth and also what the popes infallibly taught.
You certainly read a great deal into those 3 little words. Lolek said there a many Protestant denominations and you interpret that to mean that he has judged them all condemned?
WOW???!!!
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria:
?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Are you sure? Comes from Christ the Head – Head of what?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
So if Catholic and Orthodox churches split – can we call it the one true church Jesus established be?
In fact, the primary aim of Jesus to come 2000 years ago as God manifest in the flesh, was to save that which are lost. He did not come to set denominations with labels.
To Joel:
You said “The tone of your post dated implied that “..Being SO many” – implied worthless and without truth and also what the popes infallibly taught.”
That’s funny ’cause I just emphasized that there are so many protestant churches.
How do I expect you to correctly interpret the bible when you misinterpreted me?
Hi Joel,
Are you sure? Comes from Christ the Head – Head of what?
Head of the Body, which is the Church (Colossians 1:18).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel,
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
So if Catholic and Orthodox churches split – can we call it the one true church Jesus established be?
Joel, your false assumption is leading you to error in your conclusion.
1st, Sola Scriptura is not wrong because it causes division, even Christ causes division (Luke 12:51) and He is all Truth (John 14:6).
2nd, Sola Scriptura is wrong because it contradicts Scripture (Matt 18:17; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 13:7; 17).
3rd, Sola Scriptura is also wrong because it is illogical. It contradicts itself because it claims that all valid doctrines must be explicit in Scripture. Yet, Sola Scriptura is not only absent from Scripture, but contradicts Scripture.
Having said that, is following Tradition a bad method to follow in order to ensure unity in the Church? I’d say that the proof of the pudding shows that it is far better than Sola Scriptura. There are more than 20,000 divisions in 500 years of Sola Scriptura. There are only, possibly 10 in 2000 years amongst the Ancient Churches which follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
Scripture says, “you will know them by their fruits”. Which is producing more unity and thus better fruit? “Sola Scriptura” or “Church, Tradition and Scripture”?
You be the judge.
In fact, the primary aim of Jesus to come 2000 years ago as God manifest in the flesh, was to save that which are lost.
Amen!
He did not come to set denominations with labels.
In order to save that which was lost, Jesus Christ established ONE Church (Matt 16:18) and commissioned that Church to teach that which He commanded (Matt 28:19-20). Jesus didn’t write even one word of Scripture.
It is Protestants who wrested authority from the Church (Matt 18:17) and proceeded to teach every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14) against the clear teaching of Scripture.
It is ironic, that in the guise of loving Scripture, they defied its power and authority.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria:
Head of the Body, which is the Church (Colossians 1:18).
Contradictions!! When lay Catholics are questioned who is the Head of the Church – the reply it is the pope. The pope also dons the self-ordained title – “vicar of Christ” which means Christ Representative. Scripture teaches in the New Testament Church we are all “ambassadors or Representative’s of Christ”. So why this merry go round the bush?
De Maria:
Having said that, is following Tradition a bad method to follow in order to ensure unity in the Church? I’d say that the proof of the pudding shows that it is far better than Sola Scriptura. There are more than 20,000 divisions in 500 years of Sola Scriptura. There are only, possibly 10 in 2000 years amongst the Ancient Churches which follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
Please don’t simply look at the numbers. A division or a split is well.. just that and nothing else. A split takes place when there is disagreements on contentious issues. Again Christ came to establish his Church – a church comprising of spiritually born again believers, given the gift of salvation by God’s Grace through faith in Christ Jesus. I know it personally that I have been saved the Biblical way and not through works based salvation that denies the atonement of Christ redemption for mankind on the cross of calvary,
Joel,
Contradictions!! When lay Catholics are questioned who is the Head of the Church – the reply it is the pope.
You were probably speaking to ex-Catholics like seven who left the Catholic Church because they didn’t understand the true Catholic Teaching.
The Church teaches that Christ is the head:
792 Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,” especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.
The pope also dons the self-ordained title – “vicar of Christ” which means Christ Representative.
That is from Scripture. Jesus assigned Simon as the Shepherd over the Church; John 21:17.
Scripture teaches in the New Testament Church we are all “ambassadors or Representative’s of Christ”.
That is true. And that confirms the principle that a man can represent God.
So why this merry go round the bush?
Because Jesus named Simon, the Rock, after Himself, thus designating him in authority over the Church. Read more.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hello again, Joel,
Please don’t simply look at the numbers. A division or a split is well.. just that and nothing else.
If that were true, you wouldn’t be here trying to convince us that you are right and we are wrong. Besides, I am a regular poster in one of the most virulent anti-Catholic, evangelical Protestant sites. That site also opposes every flavor of Protestant that differs with their Calvinistic bias. They frequently condemn each other as much as they condemn Catholics.
So, in reality, it is not a simple, friendly “split” as you say. It is establishment of separate and opposing religions.
A split takes place when there is disagreements on contentious issues. Again Christ came to establish his Church – a church comprising of spiritually born again believers, given the gift of salvation by God’s Grace through faith in Christ Jesus.
Giving the gift of salvation to those who keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17; John 14:21-23) and the Sacraments of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16; Rom 2:13).
I know it personally that I have been saved the Biblical way
The Biblical way is the Catholic way. Your way is not found in Scripture.
and not through works based salvation that denies the atonement of Christ redemption for mankind on the cross of calvary,
It is because Christ died on the Cross that we are now permitted to approach the Throne of God and be saved by the mercy of God in the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Spirit, which occurs with every Sacrament (Titus 3:5).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Faith is fruitless without good works. Good works are meaningless without faith. We need both to lead a WHOLESOME Christian life.
Hi Lolek:
Genuine faith in Christ will surely produce a changed life and good works. A person who is truly justified by faith will have good works evident in his/her life. Good works is a product of genuine faith in Christ and not a means of it.
De Maria:
Besides, I am a regular poster in one of the most virulent anti-Catholic, evangelical Protestant sites. That site also opposes every flavor of Protestant that differs with their Calvinistic bias. They frequently condemn each other as much as they condemn Catholics.
I am happy to be a Bible believing Christian and I know the Lord loves me irrespective of my short-comings. He accepts me just as I am. I post on this blog with the intention of sharing the truth. The war is not against the flesh, but against spiritual wickedness in high places. I oppose doctrinal teachings that are anti-biblical. I am not against or condemn an individual as a person – Catholic or Protestant.
Its understandable the differences do exist between Catholic and Protestants, but you say numbers of Protestant are huge. Ok fine. But they all agree that the scriptures being God breathed are the sole rule of faith, and sufficient for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice – leaving aside differences in interpretation among themselves. Catholics say scripture ‘plus’ tradition. So here we have 50,000+ Protestant denominations versus just one Catholic who oppose submission to only scripture. So Protestants are in majority and they are right to oppose adding of un-biblical traditions to scripture, as the CC does.
Joel,
Genuine faith in Christ will surely produce a changed life and good works.
Very good. Faith which does not produce a changed life and good works is dead (James 2:14; 17; 24).
A person who is truly justified by faith will have good works evident in his/her life.
Again, that is perfectly true (Romans 2:1-13; James 2:21-26).
Good works is a product of genuine faith in Christ and not a means of it.
Absolutely. And without that genuine faith which produces obedience to the Commandments of God, we are nothing (Matt 7:21; John 14:21-23; Romans 6:16; Heb 5:9; Rev 22:12-15).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel,
I am happy to be a Bible believing Christian and I know the Lord loves me irrespective of my short-comings.
That is true.
He accepts me just as I am.
He placed the Church here in order to teach you how to achieve the perfection which He would like you to achieve (Matt 5:48; 2 Cor 13:9).
I post on this blog with the intention of sharing the truth.
I thank you for your good intention. However, I assure you that you only have a partial truth and if you want to have the fullness of the truth, you need to come to the Catholic Church (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The war is not against the flesh, but against spiritual wickedness in high places. I oppose doctrinal teachings that are anti-biblical.
Then you should be opposed to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and you should embrace every teaching of the Catholic Church.
I am not against or condemn an individual as a person – Catholic or Protestant.
Good for you. But it wouldn’t matter if you condemned or commended a Catholic or a Protestant. God is judge of all.
Its understandable the differences do exist between Catholic and Protestants, but you say numbers of Protestant are huge. Ok fine. But they all agree that the scriptures being God breathed are the sole rule of faith,
And that is the main reason that they differ with each other on so many other doctrines. Because they each interpret the Scriptures differently and rely upon their own understanding (Proverbs 3:5; 2 Pet 1:19-21).
and sufficient for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice –
The Catholic Church does not deny that the Scriptures are materially sufficient for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice. The difference is the addition of the word, “sole”. Scripture is clear that one can learn their faith, doctrine and practice from the Church (Eph 3:10), from one’s parents (2 Tim 1:5), and from one’s teachers (Heb 13:7). Scripture nowhere even suggests that one must discard all other sources of learning and hold “only” to Scripture.
Sola Scriptura is a deceptive doctrine which must have been born of Satan, because with the guise of loving Scripture, one is convinced to disobey the commandments of God recorded therein.
leaving aside differences in interpretation among themselves.
By what authority do you set those differences aside? Scripture doesn’t permit it (Titus 1:9).
Catholics say scripture ‘plus’ tradition.
You have that backwards. Scripture says Traditions, by word and epistle. Scripture is the written form of Tradition (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Pet 20-21).
So here we have 50,000+ Protestant denominations
Correct. The proof is in the pudding. 50,000 plus beliefs. A showcase of confusion. Who is the author of confusion, Joel? Is it God (1 Corinthians 14:33)?
versus just one Catholic who oppose submission to only scripture.
Yes. What does Scripture say? Ephesians 4:5
So Protestants are in majority
If this were a democracy, even that wouldn’t help you. There are many Protestant denominations. But the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has more adherents than all Protestant denominations put together.
and they are right to oppose adding of un-biblical traditions to scripture, as the CC does.
The Catholic Church does not do that Joel. The Protestants do. All I can do is repeat the evidence. It was long ago proven to me, that it is God who causes the growth. If you are not able to receive the Spiritual message, my arguments and words will not convince you (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 6:44).
Sincerely,
De Maria
To Joel
“Genuine faith in Christ will surely produce a changed life and good works. A person who is truly justified by faith will have good works evident in his/her life. Good works is a product of genuine faith in Christ and not a means of it.”
Exactly! The Catholic church teaches Faith AND good works, NOT Faith OR good works. Which is precisley why Sola Fide is contradictory! How can faith alone save you if you acknowledged that it must INEVITABLY be followed by good works?
Also, The Catholic Church teaches Faith and good works, NOT good works and Faith, because the Church knows that the former must precede the latter.
With the best intentions,
Lolek
To Toel
The protestants are not in the majority, their are 1 billion Catholics and only 600 million Protestants. (more or less)
Also, why be satisfied with half of what God intended? Being a Catholic implies that you believe in all God has revealed through out the ages. Being a protestant means you believe only up to the end of revelations. Yes, a protestant is a Christian but if Jesus still loves a muslim then whats the point of him converting to Christianity?
With the best intentions
Lolek
ERRATA : Sorry I meant Joel, not Toel.
To Joel
Another point, How can you believe the Bible alone as authority, when it was the Catholic church that codified all the books into the single book we recognize today? (I.e. The CC, by the grace of God, recognized all the books which are divinely inspired.)
The Bible didn’t just appear out of nowher, especially since all the books were written in different time periods
With the best intentions,
Lolek
To Lolek Pugeda:
Another point, How can you believe the Bible alone as authority, when it was the Catholic church that codified all the books into the single book we recognize today? (I.e. The CC, by the grace of God, recognized all the books which are divinely inspired.)
What do you mean “Catholic Church codified the books of the Bible?” You mean the CC wrote the Bible?
To Lolek Pugeda:
Exactly! The Catholic church teaches Faith AND good works, NOT Faith OR good works. Which is precisley why Sola Fide is contradictory! How can faith alone save you if you acknowledged that it must INEVITABLY be followed by good works?
So the question is : “Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?” Can you produce evidence vis-a-vis what CCC officially teaches and what the scriptures say, are one and the same?
Hi Joel,
What do you mean “Catholic Church codified the books of the Bible?” You mean the CC wrote the Bible?
The Old Testament Septuagint was written by Jews. It is the version of the Old Testament which Jesus used. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It includes those books which Protestants call “Apocrypha”.
The New Testament was written by Catholics. Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all Catholic Bishops. St. Peter was the first Pope.
The Apostles, however, did not codify the Bible. It was not until the Third Century, that St. Jerome sorted out all the books which were claimed to be canonical and put them in the Latin Vulgate. It is this Latin Vulgate, which the Catholic Church declared canonical in the Council of Trent, 12 Centuries later.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel,
So the question is : “Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?” Can you produce evidence vis-a-vis what CCC officially teaches and what the scriptures say, are one and the same?
I don’t want to make this too long, so please read this..
I’ll try to summarize it this way. You ask:
Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?
It’s not a question of either/or; it’s a question of both/and. It is both “faith alone” and “faith plus works”.
Faith plus works is the model which we inherited from the Jews. It can be summarized in the words “keep the Commandments”. (Deuteronomy 7:11; John 14:21).
Faith alone (i.e. faith apart from works) is the Sacramental model. It can be summarized in the words, “Baptism now saves you” (Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21).
In Catholic Teaching, unless one converts from sin and intends to keep the Commandments, one should not be Baptized. (Mark 16:16). In order to show that one understands the nature of sin and the necessity of avoiding it, one must study to show oneself approved (2 Tim 2:15). This is done by undergoing the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA).
Can you produce evidence vis-a-vis what CCC officially teaches and what the scriptures say, are one and the same?
Certainly. The Catholic Church refers all teachings to the Scriptures. In this case, the official teaching on “justification” is from the Council of Trent, session VI.
CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]
If you go to that link and follow the references down to the footnotes, they will indicate which Scripture verse or Catholic doctrine is referred.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria:
I’d appreciate you to please refrain from responding to questions I have posed to Lolek Pugeda. Are you the “official” spokesman for everyone?. Your response to the questions I have raised to Lolek Pugeda is not justified, full of errors that are un-biblical.
De Maria:
Your response to faith alone and faith plus works as per the Catholic teaching is in error. The links you have provided conveniently skip certain verse because you did not interpret the book of the Bible as a whole to get its contextual meaning.
On you blog article you quote Galatians 2:16, but you conveniently forgotten to interpret contextually Galatians chapter 3 which is subsequent after chapter 2. Refer to Galatians 3:23-28. It is by faith alone and is applicable to all – Jew or Gentiles.
Also you rely on Romans 2:13, but you conveniently forgot Romans 3:28 – “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28 5:1and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.
Hi Joel,
De Maria:
I’d appreciate you to please refrain from responding to questions I have posed to Lolek Pugeda.
I apologize if I upset you. The reason I responded is because I have approximately 20 years experience responding to Protestant objections to Catholic doctrine. I have heard almost everyone of them and I have everything bookmarked and ready. Poor Lolek might have to research everything from scratch.
Are you the “official” spokesman for everyone?.
No. But I see no rule against answering all your questions. So, until I am told that I am not permitted to do so, I will. Oh, and I mean by the author of this blog. Steve Ray. Not by you.
Your response to the questions I have raised to Lolek Pugeda is not justified, full of errors that are un-biblical.
Joel, the only one providing unbiblical responses full of errors in these exchanges has been you.
Sincerely,
De Maria
To Joel:
I don’t mind De Maria speaking for me, after all we defend the same faith. Something I doubt a Protestant-Calvinist would do for you.
Also, The Catholic church codified the Bible in a sense that it was The CC that organized and “united” all the books into the single book we know today. If not for the Catholic church, the protestants would not even know what books to base sola scriptura from.
Second, you need genuine faith which is accompanied by good works, thus you NEED BOTH. In a sense, it’s not choosing between blue or yellow, but rather green, wherein you need both blue AND yellow.
Also, If you reject something just because it’s un-biblical, well here you go,
“As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” James 2:26
Lastly, If you’re an adamant protestant well,
“Reason is the enemy of faith.” – Martin Luther (Founder of protestantism) The same man who divided Faith and good works
De Maria:
Poor Lolek might have to research everything from scratch.
That is creme of the pudding. That is why we have the “cradle-Catholic” tag always there. I know i was myself at one time. However we have to learn the hard-way as the devil is always at play. Besides Lolek will not be justified if you spoon feed him you faulty theological views which brain wash him. Steve has been kind to allow these posts for educational purposes. So we better be like the Bereans who diligently searched the truth in scripture.
De Maria:
The Old Testament Septuagint was written by Jews. It is the version of the Old Testament which Jesus used. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It includes those books which Protestants call “Apocrypha”.
This means the RC Church is not the one true church established by Jesus as you have rightly pointed out that it does not use books of the OT which Jesus used but “spurious” ones to support un-biblical teachings. Most likely because of ego problems caused by the reformation.
To Lolek Pugeda:
I don’t mind De Maria speaking for me, after all we defend the same faith. Something I doubt a Protestant-Calvinist would do for you.
It’s easier said than done. Adolph Hitler also brain-washed his Germany army to defend his view what he thought and held was the truth. As far as defending the faith is concerned, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God – Romans 10:17. Faith does not come by abiding in (Dog)mas nor (Catmas).
Also, The Roman Catholic church codified the Bible in a sense that it was The RCC that organized and “united” all the books into the single book we know today. If not for the Catholic church, the protestants would not even know what books to base sola scriptura from.
The early Christians knew which books of the Bible were inspired (part of the canon of scripture), so it doesn’t matter if the RCC went ahead to recognise it and as De Maria rightly pointed out that the CC did not use the Old Testament Jesus used but chose instead to use the Septugiant containing the spurious Deutrocanonical books an act to support its un-biblical doctrines and counter the reformation. Thus the RCC is not the one true Church established by Christ because it does bnot use the Old Testament books used by Christ. In fact the RCC went ahead to codify the books of the Bible just to make a “show of it”. The CC should have called for an ecumenical dialog among the Churches, but it did not do so.
Second, you need genuine faith which is accompanied by good works, thus you NEED BOTH. In a sense, it’s not choosing between blue or yellow, but rather green, wherein you need both blue AND yellow.
I have elaborated here in above on the topic of faith alone or faith plus works. See my post on July 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM.
Lastly, If you’re an adamant protestant well,
“Reason is the enemy of faith.” – Martin Luther (Founder of protestantism) The same man who divided Faith and good works
I am a Bible believing Christian and NOT a protestant because Protestant being ex-Catholics and Catholics are one and the same side of the coin. Luther only rebelled against the papacy because he held to” certain” biblical views. I don’t support Luther either (he too was a heretic) for he broke away from the RCC and brought along with him into the protestant Church several un-biblical practices of the RCC. Call it a massive hangover that happens after a late night booze party.
Hi Joel,
Thank you! This is what I love. Actual, nitty gritty comparisons to Scripture.
Your response to faith alone and faith plus works as per the Catholic teaching is in error. The links you have provided conveniently skip certain verse because you did not interpret the book of the Bible as a whole to get its contextual meaning.
Let us proceed and see if this assessment of yours is true.
On you blog article you quote Galatians 2:16, but you conveniently forgotten to interpret contextually Galatians chapter 3 which is subsequent after chapter 2. Refer to Galatians 3:23-28. It is by faith alone and is applicable to all – Jew or Gentiles.
Let’s look at that contextually. Let’s take just one more verse. Instead of starting at Gal 3:23, let’s start at Gal. 22-28. Note how he speaks of the faith OF Jesus Christ:
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Faith, like many other words, has many meanings. One of them is “trust”. The other is “religion”.
The faith OF Christ Jesus, THAT faith, is Christianity. Specifically Catholic Christianity. Sacramental Christianity. Wherein, we have faith ALONE in the works of God. The proper disposition for a believer is to have faith, to believe, that God can do what He promised to do. And He promised to renew us in the bath of regeneration that we might walk with the Saints in this life (Titus 3:5; Heb 12:21-24). Yeah, He promised to give us the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and wash away our sins (Acts 22:16). We do nothing, He does it all in the Sacraments. But, unless we keep the Commandments, we are not properly disposed to receive the Sacraments (Rom 2:13).
Also you rely on Romans 2:13, but you conveniently forgot Romans 3:28 – “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”.
Rom 3:28 does not somehow nullify Rom 2:13. They are both true. How can they both be true when they seem to contradict each other? The only way they can both be true is the way the Catholic Church teaches. The Sacrametns JUSTIFY. In order to receive the Sacraments, we must be in a state of grace. In order to be in a state of grace, we must keep the Commandments. The Commandments are the Law. Therefore, DOERS OF THE LAW ARE JUSTIFIED. BY GOD.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28 5:1and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9),
Again, you are doing your best to dispense with many Pauline passages. Foremost among them is Romans 2:1-13. But there are so many that I can’t list them all in this little space. I’ll give you five, that should suffice. Rom 13:10; Gal 5:6; 1 Thess 1:3; Heb 6:10; Heb 10:24
while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18).
THAT IS THE CATHOLIC TEACHING!!! Can Satan have blinded you so much? Faith produces good works. That is faith AND works. Or faith PLUS works. That is the Catholic Teaching. What is your problem?
You need to pray that God may open your eyes to something which Satan has blinded you. You are here explaining Catholic doctrine and at the self same time claiming that it is Protestant doctrine. Whereas, this is precisely what Protestants decry.
James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26).
Catholic doctrine.
James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works,
Yes, he is.
but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life.
Not true. Let us examine James 2:24.
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Wiggle yourself out of that. Twist the Scripture all you want. The only one who will be destroyed is YOU (2 Pet 3:16).
If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Catholic doctrine.
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.
You have misunderstood completely.
Sts. Paul and James both explain salvation by faith and works, which is the keeping of the Commandments (Roman 2:1-13; James 2: 14-24). But St. Paul also goes into detail about salvation by faith apart from works, which only happens in the Sacraments (Romans 3:28; Titus 3:5). St. Mark touched upon it (Mark 16:16), St Peter touched upon it (1 Pet 3:21); St. Luke touched upon it (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). But only St. Paul goes into detail over and over again (Romans 3:28; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5).
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel,
That is creme of the pudding. That is why we have the “cradle-Catholic” tag always there. I know i was myself at one time. However we have to learn the hard-way as the devil is always at play. Besides Lolek will not be justified if you spoon feed him you faulty theological views which brain wash him. Steve has been kind to allow these posts for educational purposes. So we better be like the Bereans who diligently searched the truth in scripture.
When will you begin to search the Scriptures? You have been spoon fed by the Protestants and are playing the devil’s game. It is you who are here espousing the faulty theological views of the Protestants.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel,
I said:
The Old Testament Septuagint was written by Jews. It is the version of the Old Testament which Jesus used. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It includes those books which Protestants call “Apocrypha”.
You responded:
This means the RC Church is not the one true church established by Jesus as you have rightly pointed out that it does not use books of the OT which Jesus used but “spurious” ones to support un-biblical teachings. Most likely because of ego problems caused by the reformation
Read what I said again Joel. The Septuagint is the version of Scripture which Jesus used. And it includes the Deuterocanonicals, which the Protestants call apocryphal because they adopted the view of the enemies of Christ. Yes, the enemies of Christ, the Jews, denied the Deuterocanonicals because they were accepted by Christ.
Sincerely,
De Maria
To Joel:
Faith does not come by abiding in (Dog)mas nor (Catmas).
That’s not even funny.
The early Christians knew which books of the Bible were inspired
Those early Christians were considered Catholic.
I have elaborated here in above on the topic of faith alone or faith plus works
The answer is Faith plus works. JAMES 2:26
I am a Bible believing Christian and NOT a protestant
Protestants believe in The Bible alone and Faith alone, how are you different?
I don’t support Luther either (he too was a heretic)
Luther believed in Faith alone and that the Bible was the only source of authority.
LASTLY, Tell me where in the Bible does it say Faith alone. NOT about “Faith” or about “alone” but FAITH ALONE?
To Joel
Do you believe that adam and eve existed?
Hi Joel,
Lolek said:
I don’t mind De Maria speaking for me, after all we defend the same faith. Something I doubt a Protestant-Calvinist would do for you.
And you responded:
It’s easier said than done. Adolph Hitler also brain-washed his Germany army to defend his view what he thought and held was the truth. As far as defending the faith is concerned, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God – Romans 10:17. Faith does not come by abiding in (Dog)mas nor (Catmas).
What in the world? Does that make sense to anybody? Joel, that just sounds like Satan inspired invective. Calm down and speak rationally. Lolek made two points which you simply ignored.
1. Because we are Catholic, it is valid that we can speak one for the other.
2. Because you espouse Protestantism, it is doubtful that any other Protestant can speak for you. Because you don’t hold the same faith.
Can you address those points?
Also, The Roman Catholic church codified the Bible in a sense that it was The RCC that organized and “united” all the books into the single book we know today. If not for the Catholic church, the protestants would not even know what books to base sola scriptura from.
The early Christians knew which books of the Bible were inspired (part of the canon of scripture), so it doesn’t matter if the RCC went ahead to recognise it and as De Maria rightly pointed out that the CC did not use the Old Testament Jesus used but chose instead to use the Septugiant containing the spurious Deutrocanonical books an act to support its un-biblical doctrines and counter the reformation.
Jesus used the Septuagint. That is what I pointed out. The reason we use the Septuagint is because Jesus used it.
Thus the RCC is not the one true Church established by Christ because it does bnot use the Old Testament books used by Christ.
Yes, it does. So, if not using the version of the Old Testament proves which is the true Church, you have just proved that the Protestants are not the true Church.
In fact the RCC went ahead to codify the books of the Bible just to make a “show of it”. The CC should have called for an ecumenical dialog among the Churches, but it did not do so.
All the Churches used the Latin Vulgate up until the time of the Protestants. That is a simple fact. Look it up.
Second, you need genuine faith which is accompanied by good works, thus you NEED BOTH. In a sense, it’s not choosing between blue or yellow, but rather green, wherein you need both blue AND yellow.
I have elaborated here in above on the topic of faith alone or faith plus works. See my post on July 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM.
Lol! Who are you? Have you crowned yourself pope? We have debunked all your messages. Go ahead, elaborate some more. And we will debunk you some more.
Lastly, If you’re an adamant protestant well,
“Reason is the enemy of faith.” – Martin Luther (Founder of protestantism) The same man who divided Faith and good works
I am a Bible believing Christian
You CLAIM to believe the Bible. But the Bible does not teach Scripture alone (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:17; 1
Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 13:7; 17). The Bible does not teach faith alone (Rom 2:1-13; Gal 5:6; Rev 22:12-15).
and NOT a protestant because Protestant being ex-Catholics and Catholics are one and the same side of the coin.
Hm? Tell the truth. Didn’t you claim to be an ex-Catholic? You said, and I quote:
That is why we have the “cradle-Catholic” tag always there. I know i was myself at one time.
Are you an ex-Catholic or not?
Luther only rebelled against the papacy because he held to” certain” biblical views.
Because he held to certain biblical errors.
I don’t support Luther either (he too was a heretic) for he broke away from the RCC and brought along with him into the protestant Church several un-biblical practices of the RCC. Call it a massive hangover that happens after a late night booze party.
YOU are still suffering from theta hangover.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria:
Read what I said again Joel. The Septuagint is the version of Scripture which Jesus used
Another contradiction and a lie. Jesus never used the Septuagint. Mathew 5:18 (KJV) states otherwise.
Your argument for the Septuagint collapses like a pack of cards. The NABRE even mutilates Matthew 5:18 beyond recognition, because all Catholic Bibles are powered by the same corrupted Alexandrian codices.
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:
“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Luke 24:44.
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!.
And yes, of course Christ was literate, read the things he said and you will clearly see.
The type of Jesus that established the one true Roman Catholic church is a counterfeit Jesus and not the true Biblical Jesus. In fact it is the false prophet called Bar-Jesus found in Acts 13:6.
To Lolek Pugeda:
To Joel
Do you believe that adam and eve existed?
That is the question you must first ask your pope (John Paull II and Benedict XIV). They have repeatedly stated in the press that Genesis was a “myth” and are open to scientific data on the origins of man. They would really do justice to themselves if they follow http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.creationtoday.org/.
To De Maria:
I doubt Joel would read your entire post, which is why he would probably pose the same questions and arguments.
To Joel
What church do you even belong to? That is assuming everyone in your church holds the same interpretation of every biblical verse.
To Joel:
You did not answer my question do YOU believe adam and eve existed?
To Joel:
You did not answer my question, do YOU believe adam and eve existed?
To Joel:
If you take the bible literally, then do tell me, where is the dome up in the sky separating the the upper waters from the lower waters (i.e. the oceans)
Hi Joel,
You said:
Another contradiction and a lie. Jesus never used the Septuagint. Mathew 5:18 (KJV) states otherwise.
Your argument for the Septuagint collapses like a pack of cards. The NABRE even mutilates Matthew 5:18 beyond recognition, because all Catholic Bibles are powered by the same corrupted Alexandrian codices.
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:….
Really? Do you think, that I said, that because the Old Testament was written in Greek, Jesus did not also use the Hebrew? Or do you think, that because the Old Testament existed in Hebrew, that Jesus did not also use the Greek?
Why would He use one only? Did He not encounter people who spoke only Greek and people who spoke only Aramaic and people who spoke only Hebrew?
Certainly, Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures. Why not!? But He also used the Septuagint Scriptures. And that is easily proven:
….Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus….
See this website for more proof that Jesus used The Septuagint
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Joel,
You said:
That is the question you must first ask your pope (John Paull II and Benedict XIV). They have repeatedly stated in the press that Genesis was a “myth” and are open to scientific data on the origins of man. They would really do justice to themselves if they follow http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.creationtoday.org/.
Joel, please make coherent arguments. Please quote that which you claim the Pope’s said, in context, so that we can make out to what you are objecting.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Lolek,
You said:
I doubt Joel would read your entire post, which is why he would probably pose the same questions and arguments.
I agree. But also, he needs to get past his presuppositions. He is still arguing with that which he thinks the Catholic Church teaches. Not with that which the Catholic Church actually teaches.
And he still believes that the doctrines he holds are in the Bible. But the doctrines which he holds are not in the Bible.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria:
Some dosier on the Septuagint
If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here’s how the legend goes:
The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.
The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.
In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.
Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and “miraculously” wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves “divine inspiration” of the entire Septuagint.
Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?
The verifiable facts:
The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus’ reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.
The supposed “librarian,” Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.
The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his “naval victory over Antigonus” (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!
The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn’t even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.
New Testament Evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:
“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find “original readings” that were supposedly “lost from the Hebrew”?.
Roman Catholics Need It
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:
“…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God” —Preface,1914 edition.
So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!
Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That’s right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!
In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.
So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.
Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.
We Don’t Need It
But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.
So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.
Hi Joel,
You said,
Some dosier on the Septuagint
If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here’s how the legend goes:….
Obviously, you don’t care for the Septuagint. And you want to convince me that the Septuagint is not worth the paper upon which it is written. Fair enough. Let me explain something to you. You have given me a choice. I should believe YOU. Or I can believe the Church about which Scripture says:
1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10
I’m not going to ask you. I’ll ask the readers. Whom do you believe? Joel, a man who admits he is fallible. Or the Church which Scripture describes as infallible?
I’ll tell you who I believe. The Catholic Church.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hello De Maria ..:
I’ll tell you who I believe. The Catholic Church.
What I find truly amazing about you is you have the audacity to even brush aside what Jesus the Son of the living God incarnate in the flesh said in Matthew 5:18 explicitly. Instead you preferred to believe wholeheartedly on the article written by a woman and posted on http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.html.
Now i really don’t know what you believe in the Catholic church, when a Church is supposed to be a pillar of truth and be a shining beacon for the ordinary faithful. Many times I day-dream on remembering fondly former greats US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who always stood for the truth’s in the Bible. I am sure will remember their famous quotes without a shadow of doubt. These men were truly geniuses the world has ever know,
God Bless you and all who have been readings the posts.
Hi Joel,
You said:
What I find truly amazing about you is you have the audacity to even brush aside what Jesus the Son of the living God incarnate in the flesh said in Matthew 5:18 explicitly.
I believe and accept Matt 5:18. Here is what Matt 5:18 says:
Matthew 5:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That says nothing about the Greek Septuagint unless someone twists it completely out of context and forces their own agenda into it.
Here’s what I find amazing about you. You have the audacity to claim to believe in the Bible, but when the Bible says, “hold the Traditions” (2 Thess 2:15), you say, “Scripture Alone!”. And when the Bible says, “not by faith only” (James 2:24), you say, “Faith Alone!”. When the Bible says, “according to their works” (Rev 22:12-15), you say “not according to their works”. And many other things we have shown that you force your Protestant agenda into the Word of God, twisting it completely out of context.
Instead you preferred to believe wholeheartedly on the article written by a woman
You have something against women?
and posted on http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.html.
You have something against believing in the Trinity?
The article which I posted showed that the Jews took offense at Jesus and altered their Hebrew Scriptures in order to void some of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming of the Messiah. But I guess that doesn’t make any difference to you. You would rather take the side of the enemies of Christ than the side of the Church which Christ established.
Now i really don’t know what you believe in the Catholic church, when a Church is supposed to be a pillar of truth and be a shining beacon for the ordinary faithful. Many times I day-dream on remembering fondly former greats US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who always stood for the truth’s in the Bible. I am sure will remember their famous quotes without a shadow of doubt. These men were truly geniuses the world has ever know,
Sure. But I follow Christ through the Church He established to teach what He Commanded (Matt 28:19-20
God Bless you and all who have been readings the posts.
And you as well.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Thanks very much Mr.Steve Ray and De Maria for defending our faith from the attacks of those who are confused by the devil.
De Maria – GOD BLESS YOU! (God Bless Joel and everyone else too)
I’m a “wanna be” apologist and your back-and-forth with Joel was truely informative and inspiring. From some other converts and apologists I’ve read about Protestants 5 ‘D’s when it comes to Catholic teaching (Downplay, Distract, Disperage, Deceive (as in, mis-represent the Catholic position) and I forget the last one). I just “watched” (er, um read?) Joel go through all of them. I also “watched” you call him on all of them plus some! WOW!
God Bless you all, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
PoorKnight for Christ (and His Church)
Comments are closed.