Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Indeed, I do have my own interpretation, which is the same as the Church's, because there is ONE truth and we are able to find it using our intellect (better explained in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas).

Quote:
There is 1 Bible and it is the one that has the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has preserved despite various controversies throughout history.

Where it is in the Bible that it says that it has 66 books??? Or did you know this by receiveing information OUTSIDE the Bible? (try giving a direct answer to this, because you haven't already)

Quote:
I never said I was inspired by the Holy Spirit, just that the Spirit teaches believers just as Scripture says. That's not to say that everybody always listens to the Spirit's teaching nor that all things are revealed.

So how come do you know whether you are listening to the Spirit's teaching or ignoring it? If you don't, then how do you know if you are following the Truth or not? Or do you simply don't?

Quote:
I know other Catholics that say that the Majesterium of the Catholic church has the true interpretation of Scripture but they interpret what the Majesterium says very differently than you do!

Now we are falling into relativism/subjetivism. You are almost saying that it is impossible to transmit knowledge to one another as the Pre-Socratics (sophists) fallaciously affirmed. If we are to both believe in one interpretation, we believe in the same thing. The infinite interpretation problem is a protestant one, because they don't have unity, which is one of the notes of the True Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. If these "other" catholics said something different from what I said (regarding catholic doctrine), then show me one example, so I can compare it to the Catholic Creed and with the teachings of the Church to tell whether this "catholic" is really catholic or just plain heretic.

Quote:
You keep ignoring my question, when did you become a new creature?

This question is completely irrelevant. You still haven't answered my questions about whether the canon of the Bible is inside it or not (even with no direct answers, you are almost admitting it is not). Nor have you explained what does the passage of Christ giving the keys of heaven to Peter means.
Even though, whether I "turned into a new creature" yesterday, ten years ago or maybe not even yet, does not contribute anything to this discussion. But even this I have to clarify as your stubbornness is bigger than your good will in learning the truth.

Quote:
That simply isn't true. The claims of the Bible are fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Babylon, not in Assyria like the book of Judith claims (which contradicts what was previously was said by authentic Scripture which is one of the reasons that Judith is rejected by honest Christians), historians know this. There is 1 Bible and it is the one that has the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has preserved despite various controversies throughout history.
(...)
Judith fails both historically and morally. That article seems to be suggesting that it's just a story, strange that he would insist that it belongs in the Bible if it's just a story and cannont be trusted for history and morality. God does not lie, and so when people claim to infalliably declare Him a lier, they prove themselves liers.

That's is the problem of "free interpretation" of the Bible, you end up falling in big mistakes and displeasing God more than anything. As an act of charity I will explain why the book of Judith is inspired, because ignoring it and all the other inspired books is an act of rebellion against God's Revealed Truth, which leads only to damnation.
Nebuchadnezzar was the sovereign of the Second Babylon Empire, when Babylon had overcome the Assyrians, whose capital was Nineveh. Since then, Nineveh became part of, alongside with the entire Assyria, the Second Babylon Empire. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar indeed reigned over Nineveh.
(just find in a book the dates of this Second Babylon Empire and the dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign)
About the "moral error of Judith", this statement is also wrong, because in war, it is licit to use cunning to defeat the enemy. And Judith did not lie. Holofernes was the one who misunderstood her words and what she have done.

You shouldn't believe in any interpretation, but the TRUE interpretation, to avoid these errors, and to REALLY follow Christ teachings, not simply saying so.

Be careful with the differences between: "some" and "all", "analogy" and "absolute", metaphor/parabole and reality, etc. To avoid bigger mistakes.

To clear up which books are part from the TRUE BIBLE:
"always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema" (from The Council of Trent - history.hanover.edu/texts...ct04.html)

The infallibility used does not go against reason, but goes beyond, for faith is not irrational, but it is beyond our limited reason.

In corde Iesu et Mariae,
R.A.C.

Author	Comment
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 472 (11/8/02 9:36 pm) Reply	Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 They said, "(5 Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and (59) your household." - Acts 16:31 NASB
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 12 (11/9/02 8:49 pm) Reply	reply [Since this is supposed to be a continuation of the other topic, I will put here the links also related to this topic: pub76.ezboard.com/fthefai...41&stop=60 and pub76.ezboard.com/fthefai...61&stop=74] *Quote:* 31 They said, "(5 Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and (59) your household." - Acts 16:31 NASB But the Bible cannot be summed up only to this sentence. We always have to consider the Bible as a whole. But reading the Bible alone is a problem as it is stated in: "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Act VIII, 29-33) And also in: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."(II Cor. III, 6) So instead of reading, faith comes from hearing as in: "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. X, 16-17). About the question of this topic, I have already answered it in the topic linked above, but I will also add these: ------------- "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James II, 14-17) -------------- "Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning" (1 Peter I, 17) -------------- "By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works : eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness."(Romans II, 5-8 ) And again: "...about the canon of the Bible: Where is the list of the books of the Bible (which books are inspired and which are not)? Is it inside the Bible? Or is it outside it?" In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 474 (11/9/02 11:16 pm) Reply	Re: reply Part 1: The book of Romans is a book written to the church in Rome and one of it�s main themes is salvation. It deals with who justifies and how a person is justified. The book of James in contrast does not deal primarily with salvation but instead deals with practical matters of the faith, it refutes misconceptions about topics such as religion, faith and wisdom. It does not deal directly with core issue of the Gospel and thus should not be view as a manual on how to be saved. Compare the hypothetical person James talks about with what Scripture says about one who believes in Christ: 14 (25) What use is it, (26) my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? - James 2:14 NASB 38 "He who believes in Me, (56) as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of (57) living water.'" 39 But this He spoke (5 of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for (59) the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet (60) glorified. - John 7:38-39 NASB 26 "Moreover, I will give you a (39) new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the (40) heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will (41) put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. - Ezekiel 36:26-27 NASB 17 Therefore if anyone is (25) in Christ, he is (26) a new creature; (27) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB The supposed believer in James 2:14 as not been changed, it does not sound like this person has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit because the evidence that Scripture mentions is not there. His supposed faith is dead not because he hasn't been a good Christian but because he never was a Christian to begin with. He was never alive in Christ as testified by the lack of change (as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) in his life. He continued to be just as dead after claiming faith as he was before because he was never born again by the Spirit of God. Part 2: Works are evidence of faith, not a part of nor a cause of faith. 18 (30) But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your (31) faith without the works, and I will (32) show you my faith (33) by my works." - James 2:18 NASB James does not say that his works play any part in his salvation but instead says that his works show his faith which is consistent with what the rest of Scripture says of one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that he is a new creature and thus not the same as he was prior to the indwelling of the Spirit within him. Part 3: The greater context of the book of James is not salvation as salvation is not the main theme of the book. The context of the second half of the second chapter deals with faith, not salvation directly. 21 (39) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that (40) faith was working with his works, and as a result of the (41) works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "(42) AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called (43) the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. - James 2:21-24 NASB Abraham�s works showed his faith. A lack of works that are consistent with faith, suggests a lack of faith, likewise, the presence of such works testifies to the existence of faith. Abraham acted the way he did because he believed, his actions testify that he did have faith. Interestingly enough the word "obedience" is not mentioned nor does the passage say that had Abraham not been ready to sacrifice Isaac that he would not have been saved. As previously mentioned, the context of the passage is faith, not salvation. The passage is dealing with recognizing genuine faith not with maintaining a certain level of obedience for salvation. Abraham's works did not play a part in saving him, his works justified his faith (as a result of the works, faith was perfected) by testifying that Abraham genuinely believed God and was not simply pretending that to have faith. 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "(42) AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called (43) the friend of God. - James 2:23 NASB James affirms what Paul says, it was Abraham's believing God that was reckoned as righteousness, not his works. His works testified that his faith was genuine but it was the faith that set him right in God's eyes and so it is by grace through faith, not by works that Abraham is saved and has a relationship with God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. - James 2:24 NASB Works justify faith by testifying that professed faith is genuine. In the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles testify to the life changing power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a result of genuine faith in Christ. The question you must ask yourself is are you a new creature, is the old passed away and the new come? 17 Therefore if anyone is (25) in Christ, he is (26) a new creature; (27) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB Justification, that is being set right in the eyes of God regarding sin, is not a result of obedience, it is a gift of grace through which the mercy and love of God is shown. 23 for all (37) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift (3 by His grace through (39) the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as (40) a propitiation (41) in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the (42) forbearance of God He (43) passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:23-26 NASB You must accept God's gift given by grace through faith to be justified before you can obey God in walking in those works which He has prepared before hand that you may walk in them. Once you have accepted the free gift rather than trying to earn it through obedience, you will be indwelt by the life giving and life changing Holy Spirit who will regenerate you, making you a new creature in Christ that you may declare your genuine faith by what you say and do in obedience to the Lord who has redeemed you entirely by Himself without your help. 8 For (1) by grace you have been saved (2) through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (3) the gift of God; 9 (4) not as a result of works, so that (5) no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, (6) created in (7) Christ Jesus for ( good works, which God (9) prepared beforehand so that we would (10) walk in them. - Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 475 (11/9/02 11:49 pm) Reply	Re: reply *Quote:* And again: "...about the canon of the Bible: Where is the list of the books of the Bible (which books are inspired and which are not)? Is it inside the Bible? Or is it outside it?" 12 Now we (24) have received, not the spirit of (25) the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, (26) not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. - 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 NASB Books that have historical and moral errors do not belong in the Bible. It is the Holy Spirit who has preserved those books which are in the Bible. 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous (3 Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the (39) son of Berechiah, whom (40) you murdered between the temple and the altar. - Matthew 23:35 NASB The original order of the Old Testament books had Genesis as first book (just as it still is now) which is the book that records the death of Abel and the last book was Chronicles (which has been split into 2 books and moved) which accounts for Zechariah. So as far as Jesus is concerned, the Old Testament consists of those books which were accepted by Israel, the books of the Hebrew Tanak (TaNaK refers to Torah which is the Law, N'vi-im which are the Prophets and K'tuvim which are the Writings which include books such as the Psalms and Proverbs). 44 Now He said to them, "(1) These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (2) Law of Moses and the Prophets and (3) the Psalms must be fulfilled." - Luke 24:44 NASB The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (The Writings) speak of Christ and Jesus recognizes them as Scripture but He does not mention the Apocrypha.
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 13 (11/10/02 8:53 am) Reply	reply *Quote:* ...Abraham's works did not play a part in saving him,... I will sum up my answer to your first post in one sentence: Where in the Bible does it say that your interpretation is the right one? You will say you are "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and I will say you are not, and this will end like that. It is your own risk to believe in your own interpretation (unbiased and undistorced you might say), I'd rather follow the one whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. On the second post: Admitting, hypothetically, that only the Scriptures were the source of revelation, you would fall in instant contradiction. Because the canon of the Bible was not fixed in it. It was initially formed by the tradition, later confirmed by the Church (Roman Catholic). "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions* which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (II Tess. II, 15)* If you agree that the canon of the Bible is not in the Bible, then the whole reformist principle of SOLA SCRIPTURA will crumble to the ground. So, do you agree or not? In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 476 (11/10/02 2:35 pm) Reply	Re: reply You trust in men, not in God. The Bible warns against human traditions. 8 (20) See to it that no one takes you captive through (21) philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the (22) elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. - Colossians 2:8 NASB The Apostles and those who worked with them, wrote the same message that they taught, they wrote to confirm what Christians had been taught so that Christians could tell the difference between the tradition (i.e. teachings) of the Apostles and the traditions introduced by men. They wrote so that we would know the certainty of what we are taught and that we may know that we have eternal life. 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things (1) accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who (2) from the beginning were (3) eyewitnesses and (4) servants of (5) the [1] word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, (6) having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you (7) in consecutive order, ( most excellent (9) Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been (10) taught. - Luke 1:1-4 NASB 13 (1) These things I have written to you who (2) believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have (3) eternal life. - 1 John 5:13 NASB The Spirit who anoints believers and dwells in them, teaches believers and confirms the truth not a bunch of men with fancy hats. 27 As for you, the (65) anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing (66) teaches you about all things, and is (67) true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. - 1 John 2:27 NASB As I already mentioned, it is the Holy Spirit who has preserved the books which the Spirit has inspired, not men. The Spirit also testifies with the spirit of a believer that the believer is indeed a child of God. 16 The Spirit Himself (32) testifies with our spirit that we are (33) children of God, - Romans 8:16 NASB It is a dangerous thing to trust in men over God, so I ask you when did you become a new creature? 17 Therefore if anyone is (1) in Christ, he is (2) a new creature; (3) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 14 (11/11/02 11:57 am) Reply	reply Again, you are giving your own interpretation of the Bible. You still insist that you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I couldn't disagree more. I know other protestants that also say that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, their interpretations contradict with yours and among themselves. So, from that I can conclude 2 things: You are all inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is contradictory, or, none of you are inspired at all. Since the Holy Spirit cannot be contradictory (a characteristic of God), then the first option is discarded and only the second option remains... *Quote:* As I already mentioned, it is the Holy Spirit who has preserved the books which the Spirit has inspired, not men. Ok, so you said that the Spirit has preserved the "books" until this day (and would obviously continue to later on). But today there are millions of books that call themselves "Bible". Which one of them is the true one? Does it say in the Bible, or do you have to know that searching outside the Bible? In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 477 (11/11/02 12:22 pm) Reply	Re: reply I never said I was inspired by the Holy Spirit, just that the Spirit teaches believers just as Scripture says. That's not to say that everybody always listens to the Spirit's teaching nor that all things are revealed. I know other Catholics that say that the Majesterium of the Catholic church has the true interpretation of Scripture but they interpret what the Majesterium says very differently than you do! Apply your own logic which you apply to interpretations of Scripture to interpretations of what the Majesterium says and it becomes clear that the Majesterium cannot do what it claims which is to explain Scripture so that there is only 1 interpretation. To accept the interpretation of the Majesterium as being valid, you must assume it to be so because the belief in the infalliability of the Majesterium says that you cannot understand Scripture and only the Majesterium can. So rather than appealing to God's Word for truth, you assume that a bunch of men in fancy cloths are telling you the truth when they say that they are the only ones with the true interpretation. Let's examine their argument: (a)They say that only they can accurately interpret Scripture. (b) They say that Scripture says that they are the only ones who can accurately interpret Scripture. So to accept (b), first you must deny (a) and interpret Scripture for yourself and come to the same interpretation that they have which says that are the only ones can accurately interpret Scripture which right away denies your own conclusion that they are the only ones who can accurately interpret Scripture since you just came to the same conclusion by your own interpretation. This is an excellent example of what is called circular reasoning, it tries to be self-authenticating but instead is self-denying. Don't put your trust in men, put your trust in God alone, He inspired the book after all. *Quote:* But today there are millions of books that call themselves "Bible". That simply isn't true. The claims of the Bible are fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Babylon, not in Assyria like the book of Judith claims (which contradicts what was previously was said by authentic Scripture which is one of the reasons that Judith is rejected by honest Christians), historians know this. There is 1 Bible and it is the one that has the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has preserved despite various controversies throughout history. You yourself said: *Quote:* Since the Holy Spirit cannot be contradictory (a characteristic of God), and yet you accept Judith as belonging in the Bible even though it contradicts the Bible.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 478 (11/11/02 12:24 pm) Reply	Re: reply You keep ignoring my question, when did you become a new creature? 17 Therefore if anyone is (1) in Christ, he is (2) a new creature; (3) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB
Taemir Arketon Private First Class Posts: 29 (11/12/02 11:24 am) Reply	Re: reply Here is a decent link explaining the Catholic understanding of the seven books at the end of the Old Testament called "5 Myths about 7 Books.": www.envoymagazine.com/bac...tory2.html Although I am not Catholic, I do not dismiss their understanding as automatically out of hand. If you have already made up your mind about the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books there is not much that can be done and it becomes silly to argue the point because it degenerates into a useless "It is inspired.", "It is NOT inspired." back and forth. Call me Mr. Ecumenical if you want (and I know that term annoys both Catholics and Protestants alike), but I would like to find some common ground. Maybe we need some more atheist attacks. But perhaps we should get back to the meat of this thread which is about salvation. Edited by: Taemir Arketon at: 11/12/02 11:29:45 am
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 479 (11/12/02 11:56 am) Reply	Re: reply "Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them. This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical." Strawman. Nobody said that "quotation equals canonicity". It just seems rather strange that Jesus and the Apostles would quote from the Septuagint but never make a direct quote from any of the Apocrypha books, especially when Jesus did make direct quotes from from almost every Old Testament book. The earliest copies we have of the Septuagint come from the 4th Century AD so there's not proof that the original Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, especially when you consider that some copies of the Septuagint include 1 & 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh which Rome rejects. Judith fails both historically and morally. That article seems to be suggesting that it's just a story, strange that he would insist that it belongs in the Bible if it's just a story and cannont be trusted for history and morality. God does not lie, and so when people claim to infalliably declare Him a lier, they prove themselves liers. That link is hardly decent. Until we can agree on salvation there can be no common ground, to do so is to encourage universalism which goes against Jesus' statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me".
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 15 (11/13/02 1:11 pm) Reply	reply Indeed, I do have my own interpretation, which is the same as the Church's, because there is ONE truth and we are able to find it using our intellect (better explained in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas). *Quote:* There is 1 Bible and it is the one that has the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has preserved despite various controversies throughout history. Where it is in the Bible that it says that it has 66 books??? Or did you know this by receiveing information OUTSIDE the Bible? (try giving a direct answer to this, because you haven't already) *Quote:* I never said I was inspired by the Holy Spirit, just that the Spirit teaches believers just as Scripture says. That's not to say that everybody always listens to the Spirit's teaching nor that all things are revealed. So how come do you know whether you are listening to the Spirit's teaching or ignoring it? If you don't, then how do you know if you are following the Truth or not? Or do you simply don't? *Quote:* I know other Catholics that say that the Majesterium of the Catholic church has the true interpretation of Scripture but they interpret what the Majesterium says very differently than you do! Now we are falling into relativism/subjetivism. You are almost saying that it is impossible to transmit knowledge to one another as the Pre-Socratics (sophists) fallaciously affirmed. If we are to both believe in one interpretation, we believe in the same thing. The infinite interpretation problem is a protestant one, because they don't have unity, which is one of the notes of the True Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. If these "other" catholics said something different from what I said (regarding catholic doctrine), then show me one example, so I can compare it to the Catholic Creed and with the teachings of the Church to tell whether this "catholic" is really catholic or just plain heretic. *Quote:* You keep ignoring my question, when did you become a new creature? This question is completely irrelevant. You still haven't answered my questions about whether the canon of the Bible is inside it or not (even with no direct answers, you are almost admitting it is not). Nor have you explained what does the passage of Christ giving the keys of heaven to Peter means. Even though, whether I "turned into a new creature" yesterday, ten years ago or maybe not even yet, does not contribute anything to this discussion. But even this I have to clarify as your stubbornness is bigger than your good will in learning the truth. *Quote:* That simply isn't true. The claims of the Bible are fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Babylon, not in Assyria like the book of Judith claims (which contradicts what was previously was said by authentic Scripture which is one of the reasons that Judith is rejected by honest Christians), historians know this. There is 1 Bible and it is the one that has the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has preserved despite various controversies throughout history. (...) Judith fails both historically and morally. That article seems to be suggesting that it's just a story, strange that he would insist that it belongs in the Bible if it's just a story and cannont be trusted for history and morality. God does not lie, and so when people claim to infalliably declare Him a lier, they prove themselves liers. That's is the problem of "free interpretation" of the Bible, you end up falling in big mistakes and displeasing God more than anything. As an act of charity I will explain why the book of Judith is inspired, because ignoring it and all the other inspired books is an act of rebellion against God's Revealed Truth, which leads only to damnation. Nebuchadnezzar was the sovereign of the Second Babylon Empire, when Babylon had overcome the Assyrians, whose capital was Nineveh. Since then, Nineveh became part of, alongside with the entire Assyria, the Second Babylon Empire. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar indeed reigned over Nineveh. (just find in a book the dates of this Second Babylon Empire and the dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign) About the "moral error of Judith", this statement is also wrong, because in war, it is licit to use cunning to defeat the enemy. And Judith did not lie. Holofernes was the one who misunderstood her words and what she have done. You shouldn't believe in any interpretation, but the TRUE interpretation, to avoid these errors, and to REALLY follow Christ teachings, not simply saying so. Be careful with the differences between: "some" and "all", "analogy" and "absolute", metaphor/parabole and reality, etc. To avoid bigger mistakes. To clear up which books are part from the TRUE BIBLE: "always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema" (from The Council of Trent - history.hanover.edu/texts...ct04.html) The infallibility used does not go against reason, but goes beyond, for faith is not irrational, but it is beyond our limited reason. In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 16 (11/13/02 1:18 pm) Reply	reply One more thing I forgot to mention: *Quote:* ...historians know this. So you would rather believe in the historians than Christ's Vicar, the Pope? In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 481 (11/13/02 5:27 pm) Reply	Re: reply I've already told you, the Holy Spirit has preserved the books contained in the Bible and there just happens to be 66 books that have been preserved. 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to (64) deceive you. 27 As for you, the (65) anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing (66) teaches you about all things, and is (67) true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1 John 2:26-27 NASB 16 The Spirit Himself (32) testifies with our spirit that we are (33) children of God, - Romans 8:16 NASB Not only does the Spirit teach but the Spirit testifies with out spirit that we are children of God. Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him, - Judith 1:5 DRB It says that he reigned in Assyria, (i.e. that's where his throne was) but Daniel and history both tells us that he reigned in Babylon. Judith lied, face the facts. If the Word of God says something and history agrees with the Word of God, as in the case of the city in which Nebuchadnezzar reigned, then I'll take the word of the of historians who agree with the Bible over the words of an imposter who claims the throne of God on this earth. Tobit and Sirach teach atonement by works. Do you believe that works can atone for sin? 17 Therefore if anyone is (1) in Christ, he is (2) a new creature; (3) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB If you are not a new creature in Christ, you are not saved. That make it a very relevant question. The doctrine of the infallibility of the Majesterium is a lie: (a)They say that only they can accurately interpret Scripture. (b) They say that Scripture says that they are the only ones who can accurately interpret Scripture. So to accept (b), first you must deny (a) and interpret Scripture for yourself and come to the same interpretation that they have which says that are the only ones can accurately interpret Scripture which right away denies your own conclusion that they are the only ones who can accurately interpret Scripture since you just came to the same conclusion by your own interpretation. This is an excellent example of what is called circular reasoning, it tries to be self-authenticating but instead is self-denying. Lets take a look at the context of this: 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are (20) the Christ, (21) the Son of (22) the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, (23) Simon Barjona, because (24) flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are (25) Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (26) Hades will not overpower it. 19 "I will give you (27) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (2 whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:15-19 NASB Peter declared that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus then replies, "I also say to you that you are Peter, (Petros in original Greek) and upon this rock (petra in the original Greek) I will build My church". The same word is not used for Peter and rock. The Church is not built on a man named Simon Peter, it is built on the Truth, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The Faith is called "Christianity", not "Peterianity". He then goes on to say "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". 24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and (23) believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and (24) does not come into judgment, but has (25) passed out of death into life. - John 5:24 NASB 15 And He said to them, "(20) Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. - Mark 16:15 NASB The keys to heaven are found in the Gospel of Truth, Jesus commissioned not just Peter but all His Apostles to preach the Gospel so that through it some would be saved.
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 17 (11/13/02 6:27 pm) Reply	reply Why did Jesus speak to Peter in particular instead of speaking to all the apostles that they had the Gospel of Truth? The language Christ used was aramaic, where Peter and stone both mean Cefas. Christ even changed the name of Peter to make this as clear as possible, i.e. at least to the men of good will. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" The "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" makes it as clear as possible that Peter received a special power from Christ, that was the power to define what is right and wrong for us (when he uses the key, obviously). *Quote:* I've already told you, the Holy Spirit has preserved the books contained in the Bible and there just happens to be 66 books that have been preserved. With this assertment that "it just happens to be", there is nothing more I can add. Not even Lucifer, with all the knowledge he had about the truth (he is one of the most powerful angels) was not converted, because his bad will, i.e. his hate of God, his rebellion due to his denial of obeying anyone, even God (due to his prideness) was so big (when an angel chooses to serve or to rebel against God, this option will be remained throughout eternity, not prone to changes as we humans are), that not even knowing God directly made him change his mind. That is why he (with his unchangeable will) and all the humans who die in mortal sin (after death you can't change your mind) will remain in Hell eternally. So who am I to convert someone who doesn't want to? I will pray to the Virgin Mary to help you at least in the moments before your death, so you might have a last change to choose between Heaven or Hell... In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 482 (11/13/02 6:43 pm) Reply	Re: reply "The language Christ used was aramaic, where Peter and stone both mean Cefas." The language which the Holy Spirit used was Greek and the Holy Spirit felt the need to translate what Jesus said as Petros and petra. Peter was singled out because Peter was the one who said "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". I ask you again, when did you become a new creature?
SirNukes Cow Master Posts: 1995 (11/14/02 11:49 pm) Reply	Re: Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Wow, there's a lot to respond to. I guess I'll just have to hit on the main things I want to say. Sorry for making a huge post and disappearing like that; a storm passed through a little under a week ago and knocked out my phone line (something to do with the old, old wiring which resulting in a mere buzz on the line instead of a stable dial tone). Hmm.. I hardly know where to start. I suppose I should just jump in with your response to my post. "I haven't insulted anyone if I recall correctly." Well, perhaps not from your point of view. But, assume for a moment a man were to talk to you saying that he were of the true Catholic church, with the true pope who holds the authority of Peter, and that if you do not convert you will end up in hell. In a way, that's rather insulting (not to mention common, in a more generic way). Such is what I referred to. "I am not talking about any mere doctrine, I am talking about God's doctrine, and that is far more important than we can fathom." I should mention that I am sharing God's doctrine, as laid out in the Bible and the human heart. Or my doctrine, if you prefer to call it that. And you share the pope's doctrine, nothing more from my standpoint. "There are two cases in which he is infallible: in the Extraordinary Magisterium, when he uses the infallibility formula, speaking "ex cathedra", and in the Ordinary Magisterium, when he teaches what the Popes have always teached in an universal problem, giving always the same solution, always teached by his predecessors. But when a Pope simply gives his opinion, he may err (like backing the evolution as you said)." Now, I don't claim to know what all that means, as I by no means am thoroughly read on Catholic doctrine. However, it sounds that you say the pope is infallible when he follows tradition. But where does that tradition originate, except with people for whom it was not tradition? And what was it to them but opinion, if they had no such tradition to guarantee their accuracy? You have to take something on sheer faith somewhere, with the possibility of being wrong. I know you could say that it comes straight from the original Peter, but even he was shown prone to error. And it strikes as something that would be included in the four versions of the gospel has it originated in Christ (after all, this is perhaps the most important thing he could have said, for it would, according to your doctrine, lay the groundwork for all future generations to learn any other teachings). "About the RCC: it is not a representation of Catholicism." I apologize, but I meant Roman Catholic Church. I have used the 'RCC' term so often in the past on this board that I have taken for granted that everyone knows what I mean. "Again a typical protestant challenge against the Church. If the Roman Catholic Church cannot teach, then who is going to explain to us what is in the Bible? Each one will understand it's own way what God revealed. The result will be the multiplication of sects. How many protestants sects are there, each one judging itself to be the right one and condemning all others? This is why Christ gave the power to interpretate the Holy Scriptures only to Peter." Of course, I disagree on the last point. But I want to point out that you are generalizing all protestants, leveling a very serious charge against every individual in a rather large group. Yes, I disagree with my closest Christian friends occasionally, and with some of them quite often. However, I would never condemn them, nor would any of them condemn me. Indeed, only rather fanatical protestant groups would do such a thing. You claim later that we have no unity, but there is indeed a heavy dose of unity among us despite varying opinions on certain issues, for those of us who have accepted salvation by grace (that thing I heavily quoted earlier) are bonded together through Christ. We protestants are all of individual beliefs, and I would say that many among us really aren't Christian, so just as with what you said about not all who claim to be Catholic really are (and, hence, single example should not be used to judge every Catholic), not all protestants represent the Christian protestants. "The purgatory can be deducted from what the Holy Scriptures teaches. Isn't it written that the just falls seven times a day? (Prov. XXIV - 16). If he is just, how come he sins? If he sins, how come he is just? This is possible because there are sins that don't make us lose the justice. These are the venial or minor sins." You ere in your reasoning that man justifies himself. The Bible is full of verses on the subject, and duelhunter gave at least one passage, so I won't bother quoting, but we are told that man is justified by God through faith, and that such a man does not have his sins held against him (all right, I give - Psalm 32:1-2 is a good example I ran across recently). Indeed, this is the issue of salvation by works vs. salvation by grace; with grace, there is no reason to even vaguely believe in the idea of purgatory. As for what you said, that purgatory can be deduced - that is if and only if you hold to the doctrine of salvation by works, and I have shown why that doctrine is unBiblical. Thus, the deduction can only be made if you ignore certain passages of the Bible; taking the bible as a whole does not allow for that deduction. Continuing down without quoting what you say: I do not agree with Martin Luther and other Protestants on all matters. Remember, we have individualized beliefs. But this topic came up some time ago and I had nothing be agreement with this logical, intuitive understanding of the matter - that all sins, even the smallest, deserve eternal death, even though their Earthly consequences may vary. Sin in treated this way throughout the Bible, even in the verses on greater sin and paying the price for sin (which I feel has everything to do with consequences on Earth), and only once is a distinguishing remark made - that there is one (not several, as you suggest) unforgivable sin. Where you get this idea of Jesus mentioning two worlds and the other being purgatory I do not know (reference, please, so that I can check it for myself), but even then there's no indication of a purgatory, just an afterlife. Back to that one special sin, even it deserves the same eternal punishment as any other sin, Christ did not dispute that, he just said that the punishment for that sin cannot be avoided. So, the Bible treats all sin equally as far as all being mortal sin, as you put it. Indeed, the only purgatory that exists is Earth itself, where we must live with our sin and its consequences. Now then, if you say that purgatory is a doctrine which originates with the popes and not the Bible, I have no particular argument besides those against the popes themselves. Btw, I don't accept Maccabees, so that's why I ignored that quote. "Instead of believing in what you understand, do believe in the Church. To have Faith is to believe in what Christ said and the Church teaches. He who believes in his own understanding has no Faith." Then I have no faith, in your terms. However, I should clarify that understanding something is true is not the same as understanding all the intricacies of that truth. Sorta like how we often use infinity in theoretical mathematical calculations and know that eternity is a true concept, even though we can't fathom such things. My faith rests in God's grace, something I cannot place limits on, but I know to be true. As for the church, I do not recognize your church as the true church. I should also clarify that Christ taught salvation by grace, thanks to his sacrifice, and that the church is the group of all who believe in and accept that grace. And I trust both to be correct. "According to what you say the Roman Catholic Church is non-Christian? Are you infallible? Where in the Bible does it say that SirNukes' interpretation is the right one?" Insofar as the Bible teaches salvation by grace through Christ, Christians are those who believe as much. The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in grace, but works, and thus I made my claim. Is it possible I am in error? Absolutely. Indeed, my hope is that both you and I will meet in heaven. My compassionate side, however weak, longs for such an occurrence. My accepted doctrine of grace makes such hope possible, for though I feel you ere, grace will forgive all things (but one) if accepted, and I can hope that your acceptance of Christ's sacrifice is more accurate than my experiences suggest, and underneath your belief in works is somewhere a faith in grace. Of course, my mind doesn't lean in that direction, but hope is hope. :) "Isn't it nice to learn a lot about Catholicism? By the questions you all make, it shows clearly a lack of knowledge about some basic issues, such as the Pope's infallibility." Aye, thanks for stopping by. Even if we get nowhere in convincing the other side to change their mind on any issues, both sides nonetheless learn (at least, I hope you are learning as much as I am). We have had plenty of agnostics and atheists pass through here, but only rarely a Catholic, and I don't recall any of them staying for any extended period of time. ... I am debating with myself if I should be so thorough with the other posts... nearly two hours on the above, however, convinces me that such is a bad idea. :) I'd like to touch on just a couple of points that stand out, however. First, what duelhunter mentioned before I got to it - the circular reasoning in Catholic doctrine. I will use my own words: man's interpretation of the Bible is fallible, so we need guidance. This guidance comes in the form of the pope, who's authority comes from Peter. We know this based on a certain interpretation of a couple verses. We know this is the correct interpretation because of the pope. Etc. The loop, of course, must be entered somewhere... either assuming that the interpretation is correct (based on your own fallible wisdom), or assuming that the pope (a man, one of many) is correct. The only argument in favor is that it seems to work out... but that is not so much something in favor as a lack of something against, and even then I have touched on why I feel there are arguments against. Now then, in response to the recurring passage of Acts 8:31... You have heavily used this to support that idea that people cannot understand scripture on their own. However, that is not what the passage is saying (I am tempted to say it's "not nearly" what the passage is saying, but it's actually in the ballpark). While it's true the eunuch required assistance, that occurrence is isolated. Specifically, lack of understanding only applies to prophecy, in particular prophecy concerning Christ. 35 "Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus." As you can see, this passage does fit what I just said. You have read the gospels, so I ask you to consider the many times Christ would reference OT prophecies concerning himself (I count six times in Matthew that Isaiah was quoted). Who would have known such things until Christ came? Few, if any. For without knowing of Christ's life, such prophecies make no sense. However, with Christ's ministry, many people learned of him and were able to piece the prophecies to him, particularly the apostles. And as knowledge of Christ spread, so did the ability to interpret such prophecies, and the need for guidance on such passages passed from the knowledgeable, remaining only in those who had not heard of Christ. Besides, need I point out that Philip was not Peter, and that he was an apostle, having learned the meaning of Isaiah 53:7-8 during his time with Christ? "By reading the Bible (the closest to the Vulgata the better)..." Why do you like the Vulgate so much? Wouldn't it be logical, after all, to make use of the closest manuscripts we have to the originals - the Greek? Why would we use the Latin, requiring a transitional translation, greatly increasing the number of errors in what we read? Also, might I mention that Jerome rejected the Apocryphal books as part of the cannon, books that have been accepted by the Catholic church? The guy who translated your favorite Bible disagreed with you; how can you trust him to have been part of the true Church if the Church is undivided? Then again, the apocrypha only got accepted at the Council of Trent, so I suppose such a conflict is limited to the last ~500 years... Btw, I go by the Council of Jamnia, Synod of Hippo and Third Synod of Carthage for my Biblical cannon. One thing they have going for them is being much, much closer to the writing period than the Council of Trent... not to mention there's a fair number of other reasons backing their decisions. On the Spirit revealing truth: One of my favorite passages on the subject is 1 Corinthians 2:6-16. I'm not sure if that reference has been given, and if it has I apologize. As far as the Bible goes, the crux of the matter is that everyone who accepts salvation by grace receive the Holy Spirit, and that holy spirit is capable of revealing further truth to them. To put it another way, every Christian is a pope. :) Though we are prone to error due to our own opinions and bias, we have the key that unlocks the truth (or, if you like, the keys to the kingdom of heaven) - the Holy Spirit. Of course, we are in constant danger of corrupting the truth with out bias, and hence disagreement arises... however, the core of the matter, grace, is universal to all who are saved. Oh, and one last thing real quick on the narrow focus upon Matthew 16:17-19. Verse 19 ("I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth with be loosed in heaven") is supposed to single Peter out according to Catholic doctrine. According to the rest of us, however, everyone has that ability. I was scanning around, and found this surprisingly close, overlooked verse: Matthew 18:18. It reads, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth with be loosed in heaven." This, by every indication, to the whole group of apostles. Like I said, the RCC likes to pick and choose it's verses so as to carefully back it's doctrines; the Bible as a whole just doesn't match up. Other things come to mind which I would like to comment on, however... this post is plenty long as it is. It's a good thing I don't consider time spent on such things wasted, otherwise I might feel bad about having spent 3 1/3 hours on it. :)

The Faithful Knights of Christ > Christian Discussion > Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>