Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[darinhouston]

I don't see a question there.

[tom]

Hi Tom,

You wrote:

If the Holy Spirit is in the head of all true Christians then the Holy Spirit must be schizophrenic. How come you and Martin Luther don't agree on many of the doctrines of Christianity? We are all lead by the same Holy Spirit right?

Is it your intention to cast doubt on what Jesus and the apostles promised about the Holy Spirit's teaching the believers?

In answer to your question: not all students under the same teacher learn the same amount or at the same speed. There is one teacher of all Christians, but not all Christians are equally teachable or conscientious in their studies.

Steve,

Luther and Gregg have the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" it's just a matter of the Holy Spirit giving only so much wisdom and revelation to only certain Christians? If you're saying that Luther didn't come to the Truth because he didn't learn as well as you, (because you must think you're right and have come to the Truth), or didn't meditate long enough on doctrine that you and he disagree.

As I have said on "The Narrow Path" you will never know if you have the Truth. And even if you do come to the Truth you may not even know it! Everyone did what was right in their own eyes and you will never know if you have the Truth.

Tom

Darin and Steve,

You have been asking me to answer your questions but I haven't seen a reasonable answer to many questions popeman and I have asked. Here's one I asked. Maybe you can finally give an answer?

Tom

I don't see a question there.

Darin,

The question is what you have all been saying; We are all guided by the Holy Spirit and will come to the Truth. Read the above post and explain why Christians, lead by the same Holy Spirit, hold to different/opposing doctrine? And if we are all coming to the Truth through the Holy Spirit, we only have to keep studying and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, will we ever know we are at the Truth?

Tom

[Homer]

Hi Tom,

It has become apparent to me that you are unable to answer the questions regarding the application of Matthew 18 because you can not see that the steps Jesus gave there are intended to reconcile and restore relationships where one brother (or sister) has sinned against another. The instruction Jesus gave his disciples is about something of highest importance: if we will not forgive one another, God will not forgive us, no matter what a priest or the RC says. The subject there is a case of "if your bother sins against you".

You are so intent on establishing the authority of the the RC church institution, and the pretensions of that institution, that you do not recognize that the situation in Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem, was about a different kind of dispute entirely. The issue at this council was not about forgiveness and reconciliation between Christians, but about whether any person could be a Christian at all without keeping the Law of Moses, and in particular, without being circumcised. You have conflated two entirely different situations, and doctrines. The issue resolved at this council was one that affected all who would follow Jesus. The issue in Matthew 18 is about relations between two (or more) individuals.

You have shown this by your (Popeman's?) response regarding a brother who has lied about and defamed a brother by doing so. Your answer was that your church would not concern itself with such a matter, and indicated that it would have to be something bigger than this for your church to get involved. Some momentous decision regarding all Christians. I must say I am very surprised that your infallible church would misconstrue something so simple, if this is their opinion, and not just your own, but I am thinking your opinions are not your own, but those of your church!

It is claimed that the RC church has the same authority as the council at Jerusalem, and infallibly so. I would like to know of even one point of doctrine, in the dogma of the RC church, not found in the scriptures, that is essential to our being saved (we can not be saved apart from it) and/or being a fruitful and faithful disciple of Jesus. Surely you are aware there are things in the dogma of the RC church that are not found in the scriptures, but promulgated at a later time.

[Homer]

Tom,

You wrote:

The question is what you have all been saying; We are all guided by the Holy Spirit and will come to the Truth. Read the above post and explain why Christians, lead by the same Holy Spirit, hold to different/opposing doctrine? And if we are all coming to the Truth through the Holy Spirit, we only have to keep studying and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, will we ever know we are at the Truth?

My answer is that the essential truth, i.e., that without which we can not be saved or be a fruitful disciple of Jesus, is simple and easy to understand by an open and inquiring mind, who will search the scripures for theirself. These truths can be known with certainty. The rest can be left as a matter of opinion, with loving forebearance with those who disagree, just as Paul indicated regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols.

The real problem comes in when a person follows the teachings of fallible men and does not follow Jesus. If a Catholic is in a state of unforgiveness toward a brother, and he goes to confession, can that sin be forgiven by the priest while the confessor remains in the unforgiving state? What wiil your church do?

[steve]

Tom,

A sentence ending with a mark like this one: "?" is a question, seeking an answer. A sentence without such a mark is not a question.

Every time you or popeman have posted sentences that end with this punctuation mark, you have immediately receieved direct and honest answers from the person or persons to whom you addressed the questions. Have you found any exceptions to this?

On the other hand, whenever you and popeman have been addressed with sentences ending in this (?) mark, you have either not recognized the sentence as a question, or have given an answer to a question different from the one asked.

I have grown increasingly perplexed. I have never had the impression that there is any defect in your intelligence, so I have to assume either that you have a blind spot that blocks from your perception any question whose honest answer might challenge Roman Catholic orthodoxy, and from recognizing even that an answer has been given to your questions, or else that you are pretending not recognize or to understand questions which you, as a man of normal intelligence (or above), could not fail to understand.

If you cannot see these questions because of a psychological "dead zone" then I am wasting my time asking any further questions of you, or answering any more of yours. Why bother, if the cables have been cut, and the information is not reaching you? On the other hand, if you are pretending not to understand things which no one could reasonably fail to understand, then it is a game for you, and I am not a player. I don't see how I can (or why I should) continue to dialogue with you, if there is no hope of carrying on an intelligible conversation.

You wrote:

I don't want to balance the score with 1 for you and 1 for me. I only want you to see that I'm, (the RCC), not just pulling this stuff out of my hat. I am using Scripture just like you all are!

Tom, you are using scripture, it is true. But you certainly are not using scripture just like I am. I am looking at the actual sentences in the scriptures I am using, and talking about what they say. You are mentioning verses and passages, but have done nothing toward an examination of their actual words or meanings. You have only been taught to see them through a Catholic grid, which apparently prevents you from even noticing that the verses are talking about something entirely different from what you are using them to support. Please pay closer attention to the actual words and sentences in the verses you are depending upon for your arguments. Failure to do so leads not to use, but abuse, of the scriptures.

[darinhouston]

Tom, if I could point out one thing here that might help...

You seem to think we need to answer your question as to the supposed failings in not having the RCC, but you are the one with the claims of an infallible RCC authority on doctrinal matters. From our perspective, we're all the same in practical fact -- we all get things wrong sometimes, even your RCC doctrines and dogmas over the years. You are the one that suggests the RCC does not have these "challenges," since it is infallible and unchanging in its teachings. You made the assertion that there is no doctrine that has changed over the years. We believe you are incorrect, and have raised several examples of where we think there has been considerable change over the years, with successive popes and/or councils changing the church's views on particular items of doctrine. If you believe those have been consistent, then we would be put to our research to find information to show you that your presupposition is incorrect. If we're correct, then wouldn't you want to be aware of the error of your understanding with respect to something so important? If we're not correct, then wouldn't we be interested to know that our suspicions about your church are incorrect and lead us to consider and pursue your claims of infallibility with more respect ? Who knows? You may lead us to accept the authority of your church (and thus save our souls, it seems) if we have a flawed understanding of the truth claims of the RCC as infallible and authoritative on doctrinal matters.

Thus, though Homer did a good job explaining how we see the matter working itself out in the absence of an RCC authority, I don't see how "flaws" in our system progresses the discussion in light of the above. I might add, though, that my view of the scripture reference is that it is not a "promise" that we will receive "all truth" but a simple statement that all the truth we will receive will be given by the power of the "Holy Spirit," and a recognition that we lack the ability to discern "Truth" (with a capital T) on our own in our flesh without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. We grant you that we can be wrong from time to time. The question, however, is whether the RCC solves that problem and has God-given authority in these matters to prevent such inconsistencies in biblical teaching.

Here's our question....

Can you confirm that the RCC has had consistent teachings in the areas Steve and I have pointed out? I can list them for you if you need me to.

[tom]

Hi Tom,

It has become apparent to me that you are unable to answer the questions regarding the application of Matthew 18 because you can not see that the steps Jesus gave there are intended to reconcile and restore relationships where one brother (or sister) has sinned against another. The instruction Jesus gave his disciples is about something of highest importance: if we will not forgive one another, God will not forgive us, no matter what a priest or the RC says. The subject there is a case of "if your bother sins against you"..

I think you're off base. Matt 18 is about forgiveness but that's not the what's going on here. It's about defining sin and correction of that sin among the Christian community.

You are so intent on establishing the authority of the the RC church institution, and the pretensions of that institution, that you do not recognize that the situation in Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem, was about a different kind of dispute entirely. The issue at this council was not about forgiveness and reconciliation between Christians, but about whether any person could be a Christian at all without keeping the Law of Moses, and in particular, without being circumcised. You have conflated two entirely different situations, and doctrines. The issue resolved at this council was one that affected all who would follow Jesus. The issue in Matthew 18 is about relations between two (or more) individuals.

If I were to teach a fellow Christian predestination and that Christian were to say to me; 'I've been trying to stop a certain sin in my life but I just can't seem to overcome it. I just keep falling back into sin!'. And I say to him; 'well maybe you're not one of the elect?'. He, after feeling over powered by sin, finally gives up and figures, maybe predestination is right, I'm not one of the elect! Would I have committed a sin between the two of us?

It is claimed that the RC church has the same authority as the council at Jerusalem, and infallibly so. I would like to know of even one point of doctrine, in the dogma of the RC church, not found in the scriptures, that is essential to our being saved (we can not be saved apart from it) and/or being a fruitful and faithful disciple of Jesus. Surely you are aware there are things in the dogma of the RC church that are not found in the scriptures, but promulgated at a later time.

So you say.

Tom

[tom]

Tom,

You wrote:

The question is what you have all been saying; We are all guided by the Holy Spirit and will come to the Truth. Read the above post and explain why Christians, lead by the same Holy Spirit, hold to different/opposing doctrine? And if we are all coming to the Truth through the Holy Spirit, we only have to keep studying and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, will we ever know we are at the Truth?

My answer is that the essential truth, i.e., that without which we can not be saved or be a fruitful disciple of Jesus, is simple and easy to understand by an open and inquiring mind, who will search the scripures for theirself. These truths can be known with certainty. The rest can be left as a matter of opinion, with loving forebearance with those who disagree, just as Paul indicated regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols.

The real problem comes in when a person follows the teachings of fallible men and does not follow Jesus. If a Catholic is in a state of unforgiveness toward a brother, and he goes to confession, can that sin be forgiven by the priest while the confessor remains in the unforgiving state? What wiil your church do?

Are those essential truths the same a Hank Hanegraaff's, (The Bible Answer Man), or Steve Gregg's or yours? Pleas tell us what are the essential Truths?

Tom

[tom]

Tom,

A sentence ending with a mark like this one: "?" is a question, seeking an answer. A sentence without such a mark is not a question.

Every time you or popeman have posted sentences that end with this punctuation mark, you have immediately receieved direct and honest answers from the person or persons to whom you addressed the questions. Have you found any exceptions to this?

On the other hand, whenever you and popeman have been addressed with sentences ending in this (?) mark, you have either not recognized the sentence as a question, or have given an answer to a question different from the one asked.

I have grown increasingly perplexed. I have never had the impression that there is any defect in your intelligence, so I have to assume either that you have a blind spot that blocks from your perception any question whose honest answer might challenge Roman Catholic orthodoxy, and from recognizing even that an answer has been given to your questions, or else that you are pretending not recognize or to understand questions which you, as a man of normal intelligence (or above), could not fail to understand.

If you cannot see these questions because of a psychological "dead zone" then I am wasting my time asking any further questions of you, or answering any more of yours. Why bother, if the cables have been cut, and the information is not reaching you? On the other hand, if you are pretending not to understand things which no one could reasonably fail to understand, then it is a game for you, and I am not a player. I don't see how I can (or why I should) continue to dialogue with you, if there is no hope of carrying on an intelligible conversation.

You wrote:

I don't want to balance the score with 1 for you and 1 for me. I only want you to see that I'm, (the RCC), not just pulling this stuff out of my hat. I am using Scripture just like you all are!

Tom, you are using scripture, it is true. But you certainly are not using scripture just like I am. I am looking at the actual sentences in the scriptures I am using, and talking about what they say. You are mentioning verses and passages, but have done nothing toward an examination of their actual words or meanings. You have only been taught to see them through a Catholic grid, which apparently prevents you from even noticing that the verses are talking about something entirely different from what you are using them to support. Please pay closer attention to the actual words and sentences in the verses you are depending upon for your arguments. Failure to do so leads not to use, but abuse, of the scriptures.

I don't think you quite understand the amount of questions popeman and I are being asked. In Homer's short post prior to yours there are 2 questions as well as several comments that need/should be addressed. When we're on a particular subject I can only answer the ones that are most important.

If you have a question that requires an answer, I'll try to get to it. Like the question of the Pharisees who sit on Mose's seat. I would like to answer that but by the time I start, there are many more questions. And you and others are saying; Tom, you're avoiding my question!

By the way, you haven't answered my question about all being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Tom

[tom]

Tom, if I could point out one thing here that might help...

You seem to think we need to answer your question as to the supposed failings in not having the RCC, but you are the one with the claims of an infallible RCC authority on doctrinal matters. From our perspective, we're all the same in practical fact -- we all get things wrong sometimes, even your RCC doctrines and dogmas over the years. You are the one that suggests the RCC does not have these "challenges," since it is infallible and unchanging in its teachings. You made the assertion that there is no doctrine that has changed over the years. We believe you are incorrect, and have raised several examples of where we think there has been considerable change over the years, with successive popes and/or councils changing the church's views on particular items of doctrine. If you believe those have been consistent, then we would be put to our research to find information to show you that your presupposition is incorrect. If we're correct, then wouldn't you want to be aware of the error of your understanding with respect to something so important? If we're not correct, then wouldn't we be interested to know that our suspicions about your church are incorrect and lead us to consider and pursue your claims of infallibility with more respect ? Who knows? You may lead us to accept the authority of your church (and thus save our souls, it seems) if we have a flawed understanding of the truth claims of the RCC as infallible and authoritative on doctrinal matters.

Thus, though Homer did a good job explaining how we see the matter working itself out in the absence of an RCC authority, I don't see how "flaws" in our system progresses the discussion in light of the above. I might add, though, that my view of the scripture reference is that it is not a "promise" that we will receive "all truth" but a simple statement that all the truth we will receive will be given by the power of the "Holy Spirit," and a recognition that we lack the ability to discern "Truth" (with a capital T) on our own in our flesh without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. We grant you that we can be wrong from time to time. The question, however, is whether the RCC solves that problem and has God-given authority in these matters to prevent such inconsistencies in biblical teaching.

If this is your answer to my question you haven't gone anywhere. Except to say the Holy Spirit gives different Truths to different Christians at different times in their lives and education! Please help me understand your answer.

Here's our question....

Can you confirm that the RCC has had consistent teachings in the areas Steve and I have pointed out? I can list them for you if you need me to.

In your post you've asked many questions and made many statements that should be responded to. Can you please list the questions but list them only one at a time? Let's try to get that question answered before we start on another barrage

Thanks,
Tom