"Am I a Christian?" Part 5 of 9

[Patrick Miron]

AM I a CHRISTIAN

Start Pt 5 of 9

Point #5 Salvation though Jesus Christ

[5] I believe God came in the form of Jesus to suffer for our sins and to make us spiritually anew and we will one day be one with groom Christ in Holy union.

Here I friend Blue, I have a quandary: I’m an Informed, fully practicing Roman Catholics so there will be much we disagree with on this issue. To minimize the possible friction, I am inspired to ask a series of questions for YOU to answer:

QUESTION: How would YOU define “truth”?

Simple logic, basic morality, and even the dictionary in summary indicate that “truth” can be nothing other than singular per defined issue. Meaning that “there cannot be my truth and your truth or there would be no truth.”

QUESTION: Can you disprove this?

I will then point out that the Bible is a Catholic birthed book {you can GOOGLE IT}

It was early Catholic Fathers who Inspired by the Holy Spirit who choose the 46 Old Testament books; and it was {is} men known today to be Catholics who Authored the entire New Testaments 27 books {73 in total}.

The Bible was Fully authored by the end of the 1st Century; some 1,400 year prior to the Protestant Reformation

Today’s Canon of the Bible {the ordained, sustained and original list of all the books to be included in the bible} was finalized in the late 4th Century; and remains intact unchanged today except for the removal of 7 books by Martin Luther; who was an Apostate Catholic Monk. All of this is historically provable with just a bit of effort. Luther also took liberties in changing some text; and greater liberties in permitting personal translations; EVEN THOUGH THE BIBLE ITSELF PROHBITS SAME:

2 Peter 1: [16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," [18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. [20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, [21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Douay Bible explanation 20 "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"... This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. End Quotes

QUESTION: Being that the is “God Breathed”, and that historically this was accomplished in authorship and assembly by the end of the 4th Century; some 1,000 years prior to the Reformation; does not simple logic dictate that what the bible contained; and HOW it was understood for more than 1,500 years before Luther and Calvin intervened to change it; is God’s intended content and translation? {This can be biblically proven by the way}

OR perchance are Luther, Calvin and your pastor somehow exempt from these Bible teachings?

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 “[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

DOUAY Explanation [16] "All scripture,": Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

Revelations [18] For I testify to everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.”

QUESTION: How many different sets of Faith-beliefs CAN God accept as being His TRUTHS?

The Final, and for now, most important and overriding QUESTION is:

Where in the Bible {or on what other authority} Do Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Smith, Jones or anyone else have to change very long defined And held Catholic Church beliefs and teachings? Beliefs and teaching that countless Souls have given their very life’s in defense of; and are still doing so today is Africa, China, and the Middle East. Or am I to suppose that they don’t need any, {meaning of course that they have none.”

END Pt 5 of 9

May God Lead and Guide our Life Paths,
Patrick

 

[David1967]

Martin Luther; who was an Apostate Catholic Monk.

Hello Patrick. Welcome to RF.
First of all. I'm not Lutheran. And I'm not catholic either. But whatever faults Martin Luther had, and he did. I do think he did a good deed by calling out the corrupt Catholic church of his time by calling them out on such things as the selling of indulgences, and salvation by grace alone. That took a lot of guts in that time. The catholic church then could have easily had him killed.

 

[Kenny]

I will then point out that the Bible is a Catholic birthed book {you can GOOGLE IT}

It was early Catholic Fathers who Inspired by the Holy Spirit who choose the 46 Old Testament books; and it was {is} men known today to be Catholics who Authored the entire New Testaments 27 books {73 in total}.

The Bible was Fully authored by the end of the 1st Century; some 1,400 year prior to the Protestant Reformation


May God Lead and Guide our Life Paths,
Patrick

the Bible is not a "Catholic" birthed book... it's actually Jewish.

The Protestant Reformation came about because they had deviated from the Bible.

But I am sure that the Bible is still guiding your path as the Holy Spirit leads you.

 

[Patrick Miron]

Hello Patrick. Welcome to RF.
First of all. I'm not Lutheran. And I'm not catholic either. But whatever faults Martin Luther had, and he did. I do think he did a good deed by calling out the corrupt Catholic church of his time by calling them out on such things as the selling of indulgences, and salvation by grace alone. That took a lot of guts in that time. The catholic church then could have easily had him killed.

Thank you,
We agree on the selling of indulgences; it WAS a stupid idea... a foundational tenet of Moral Theology is: "One may never to an evil for a good cause." And the RCC agreed with US and gave this short-lived- practice a quick death.

As a FYI, the Catholic Church does not teach Salvation by "grace alone." Indeed salvation is a lifelong process including Faith, Grace and Charity; and dying without unconfessed {John 20:1923} unremitted Mortal sins {1 John 5:16-17}.

And please share where "the CC could easily have killed him" comes from? Heretics and Apostates have existed with regularity from the time of Judas. We haven't killed any of them. {Yes the Middle ages was iffy; but extensive efforts were first made to convert them; when that failed they were turned over to the civil authorities.... This was the culture of that time and place; and YES, it too was a black mark on our history.}

God Bless you and thanks for the reply,
Patrcik

 

[David1967]

Thank you,
We agree on the selling of indulgences; it WAS a stupid idea... a foundational tenet of Moral Theology is: "One may never to an evil for a good cause." And the RCC agreed with US and gave this short-lived- practice a quick death.

As a FYI, the Catholic Church does not teach Salvation by "grace alone." Indeed salvation is a lifelong process including Faith, Grace and Charity; and dying without unconfessed {John 20:1923} unremitted Mortal sins {1 John 5:16-17}.

And please share where "the CC could easily have killed him" comes from? Heretics and Apostates have existed with regularity from the time of Judas. We haven't killed any of them. {Yes the Middle ages was iffy; but extensive efforts were first made to convert them; when that failed they were turned over to the civil authorities.... This was the culture of that time and place; and YES, it too was a black mark on our history.}

God Bless you and thanks for the reply,
Patrcik

Thanks for the reply Patrick. Just so you know, I am not anti Catholic. I do however disagree with some traditions. You being an apologist of your faith look like a good source of information concerning said traditions.
As far as killing heretics: Did the Catholic church of the middle ages not kill many in say the Spanish inquisition? And I'm speaking from a historical sense here, not implying that they would do the same today.

 

[Patrick Miron]

Thanks for the reply Patrick. Just so you know, I am not anti Catholic. I do however disagree with some traditions. You being an apologist of your faith look like a good source of information concerning said traditions.
As far as killing heretics: Did the Catholic church of the middle ages not kill many in say the Spanish inquisition? And I'm speaking from a historical sense here, not implying that they would do the same today.

That is what I was referencing, so the answer is SORTA:

The Church made extreme efforts to convert known heretics; failing that that turned them over to the local governments for trials; which was for the most part a pro-forma death penalty. It is NOTABLE though that this was the CULTURE at that time and place.

Thanks for the reply Patrick. Just so you know, I am not anti Catholic. I do however disagree with some traditions. You being an apologist of your faith look like a good source of information concerning said traditions.
As far as killing heretics: Did the Catholic church of the middle ages not kill many in say the Spanish inquisition? And I'm speaking from a historical sense here, not implying that they would do the same today.

Hi David, I'm an Apologetic's {Catholic Faith} Teacher, not a Church historian.


That is what I was referencing, so the answer is SORTA:

The Church made extreme efforts to convert known heretics; failing that that turned them over to the local governments for trials; which was for the most part a pro-forma death penalty. It is NOTABLE though that this was the CULTURE at that time and place

There was regionally some in-fighting for personal gains also. This was NOT the Universal RCC; but a more localized situation.

PLEASE check out this site for an Objective history:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed

And as to the practice of FORCING anyone to become a Catholic:

From Our Catechism:

#2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."

This site references NOW Unchangeable Church Doctrines:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-catholic-church-approve-of-forced-conversions-0

Thanks for your POST Dave, may God guide our paths,

Patrick

 

[David1967]

That is what I was referencing, so the answer is SORTA:

The Church made extreme efforts to convert known heretics; failing that that turned them over to the local governments for trials; which was for the most part a pro-forma death penalty. It is NOTABLE though that this was the CULTURE at that time and place.


Hi David, I'm an Apologetic's {Catholic Faith} Teacher, not a Church historian.


That is what I was referencing, so the answer is SORTA:

The Church made extreme efforts to convert known heretics; failing that that turned them over to the local governments for trials; which was for the most part a pro-forma death penalty. It is NOTABLE though that this was the CULTURE at that time and place

There was regionally some in-fighting for personal gains also. This was NOT the Universal RCC; but a more localized situation.

PLEASE check out this site for an Objective history:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed

And as to the practice of FORCING anyone to become a Catholic:

From Our Catechism:

#2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."

This site references NOW Unchangeable Church Doctrines:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-catholic-church-approve-of-forced-conversions-0

Thanks for your POST Dave, may God guide our paths,

Patrick

Thank you for the info and the links Patrick. I look forward to discussing further topics with you.

 

[David1967]

It is NOTABLE though that this was the CULTURE at that time and place.

Noted. would not be fair to judge the Catholic Church of today according to the middle ages. That was a brutal time regardless of faith as far as I know. But I do like history.

 

[Patrick Miron]

Thank you for the info and the links Patrick. I look forward to discussing further topics with you.

Noted. would not be fair to judge the Catholic Church of today according to the middle ages. That was a brutal time regardless of faith as far as I know. But I do like history.

Mr too!

God Bless,
Patrick