Lets say for example there is some tribe of indians in South America who live out in the jungle and have never had contact with the modern world. What happens when they die? Do they get some sort of choice to believe the Bible or what?

-- (randir14@yahoo.com), June 23, 2003

Answers

They definitely don't go to Heaven unless they accept Christ by a miracle. Otherwise, because of their original sin, they go to Hell.

This seems unfair and God is believed to be just. A number of authorities therefore (including Pope Innocent III) have taught that if such a person dies with only original sin, then he may go to a place called Limbo. This is also the place where unbaptised babies, aborted fetuses etc. may go. Limbo is a happy place, but it is not as good as Heaven, because the full presence of God is not there.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

If the person has never got the chance to heard the gospel, then they didn't personally reject Christ because of there ignorance. But I'm sure Jehovah will show them the gospel atleast once in their life, so they won't have "ignorance" as an excuse.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 24, 2003.

The Church's teaching on this is quite clear. Such persons come under a principle called "invincible ignorance", meaning that their lack of acceptance of Christ is totally beyond their control since they never had the opportunity to accept Him. It is therefore in keeping with the fact of a just and loving God that such persons could not suffer the same fate as those who, having been introduced to Christ, have chosen to reject Him.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (article 847) words it this way: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.

There is also a document released jointly by the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in 1991, called "Dialogue and Proclamation."

It's at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_coun cils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and- proclamatio_en.html

Some notable paragraphs:

"28. The mystery of the unity of all mankind

First comes the fact that the whole of humankind forms one family, due to the common origin of all men and women, created by God in his own image. Correspondingly, all are called to a common destiny, the fullness of life in God. Moreover, there is but one plan of salvation for humankind, with its centre in Jesus Christ, who in his incarnation "has united himself in a certain manner to every person" (RH 13; cf. GS 22.2). Finally, there needs to be mentioned the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the religious life of the members of the other religious traditions. From all this the Pope concludes to a "mystery of unity" which was manifested clearly at Assisi, "in spite of the differences between religious professions."(13)

29. The unity of salvation

From this mystery of unity it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. Christians know this through their faith, while others remain unaware that Jesus Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of salvation reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the invisible action of the Spirit of Christ. Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their saviour (cf. AG 3,9,11)."

"31. Values and contradictions

To say that the other religious traditions include elements of grace does not imply that everything in them is the result of grace. For sin has been at work in the world, and so religious traditions, notwithstanding their positive values, reflect the limitations of the human spirit, sometimes inclined to choose evil. An open and positive approach to other religious traditions cannot overlook the contradictions which may exist between them and Christian revelation. It must, where necessary, recognize that there is incompatibility between some fundamental elements of the Christian religion and some aspects of such traditions."

And later in the document...

"66. The duty to announce

Pope Paul VI said in his Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi: "The presentation of the Gospel message is not optional for the Church. It is her duty, by command of the Lord Jesus, so that men may believe and be saved. This message is indeed a necessary one. It is unique and irreplaceable. It allows of neither indifference, syncretism, nor compromise, for it concerns the salvation of mankind" (EN 5). The urgency had been indicated by Paul: "How then are they to call upon him if they have not come to believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard of him? And how will they hear of him unless there is a preacher for them?... But it is in that way that faith comes, from hearing, and that means hearing the word of Christ" (Rm 10:4 ff).

"This law, set down one day by the Apostle Paul, maintains its full force today... it is through listening to the Word that one is led to believe" (EN 42). It is fitting to remember also that other word of Paul: "For if I preach the Gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (1 Co 9:16)."

Hope that helps. God bless!

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Yikes, I was wrong! In fact, even more wrong than Ortiz! A case of vincible ignorance. :-)

I apologize for implicating a Pope in my wrongness. I used this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo: Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God"

To clarify, I believe that Limbo is where the soul of the good indian would have gone if he lived before Christ.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

The idea of Limbo is not actually Catholic doctrine, though it did become popular as a possible explanation for just such situations as those you describe. The idea has not been formally denounced by the Church either, so Catholics are free to accept it. But unlike the doctrines of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, which are essential elements of the Christian deposit of faith, and must be accepted in order to possess the fullness of Christian truth, "Limbo" is optional. It is a theory which proposes one possible explanation for a specific theological question.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.

Only one truth is left to address:

No matter how nor why the soul who was in invincible ignorance is finally saved, he/she is still saved in the Catholic Church.

A kind of mystery for believers here; because we can't conceive how the Church is able to bring a soul to salvation (Christ saves) without enrolling the soul as a living member. But the truth is, no salvation can be had outside the Church. Even a rabid anti-Catholic (if it's possible) would only enter heaven by way of the Church. He would have to be, once again, a soul in invincible ignorance. (like Alex & D.O.)

In addition, he would have to die forgiven for his sins. A tall order, but always a possibility. He would have to have been an upright, charitable and God-fearing soul. Many non-Catholics surely are.

That would suffice for the baptism of desire and final perseverance, I estimate. Have I left out something?

He/she would die as a potential, de facto Catholic; and a child of God. The infinite store of Christ's grace is held for him/her in one place on earth. The Church; no place else.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Ignorance is NO excuse.

God says in Acts 17:30-31, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

Luke 12:48 states, "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

Even in the Old Testament, ignorance was NO excuse for in Leviticus 5:17 God says, "If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity."

God will render to each person according to their deeds.

Romans 2:6 states, "who "will render to each one according to his deeds:"

Verse 7 states, "eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

Verse 8 is for those who do NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, "but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath,"

Verse 9, "tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;"

Verses 10-11, "but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

Here is the conclusion in Verse 12, "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law"

Unless one obeys the gospel, which is God's power to salvation (Romans 1:16), they WILL be on the receiving end of the wrath of God. (See 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

OK, Kevin:
The way to say this is, ''Ignorance is no excuse for sin,'' yet some of the ignorant will in some cases be forgiven for sins despite the ignorance.

You sum it up well, Romans 2:6, Who will render to each one according to his deeds.

Many out of our millions in this life have obeyed the natural law, written in their hearts. Out of that many, charity (Love) will have set some him/her apart; and, if in the end, that soul hates sin, turns away from it, and dies as a just soul, he may be shown mercy.

The Church teaches one thing above all: the inifinite Love and Mercy of God. We should realise this is the actual Good News. And the Good News shall be given to all men with time.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Eugene,

If God says in Romans 6:23 the Wages of Sin = Death, and since God also says that "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23, how do you reconcile your statement "yet some of the ignorant will in some cases be forgiven for sins despite the ignorance" with what God has said since He commands ALL men to repent in Acts 17:30?

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

The fact that God calls all men to repent has little meaning for the man who has never had the opportunity to know that God calls men to repent - or even to know that there is a God! God deals in perfect justice with such individuals, as he does with all individuals, and justice would certainly dictate against the eternal damnation of people who simply didn't know, through no fault of their own. God saves whomever He wishes to save, excepting only those persons who refuse to allow God to save them. These have chosen damnation as an alternative to God. Those who have not had an opportunity to choose one way or the other will certainly be treated differently from those who have purposefully chosen evil.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.

Paul has it. I would answer Kevin's: ''how do you reconcile your statement "yet some of the ignorant will in some cases be forgiven for sins despite the ignorance"-- with what God has said since He commands ALL men to repent in Acts 17:30?''

Kevin, in the forgiven case it will be because God gave the soul of an ignorant person grace to repent, despite not knowing His Will.

I stated clearly, ''If that man hates his sin, and turns away (repents) from it. Even a truly ignorant soul can see the evil he's done. It is a burden on his natural conscience. Without grace, he would never repent. But-- again I tried to show-- If the person had lived according to his conscience --though sinning in some stages, a life of charity, of good will toward his fellows, an upright & honorable life--

Grace is availed him in the end. To hate sin, love justice, and die in peace. We only HOPE God's infinite mercy will save Him.

He will, for the sake of His Holy Son Jesus Christ. Not because He must, but because He Wills-- all men to be saved. This is the doctrine known as invincible ignorance vs. salvation in Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Paul,

You do err not knowing the scriptures. The apostle John wrote in John 10:1, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."

Jesus said this concerning judgment day in Matthew 22:11-14, "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Since there are few who find the way which leads to life, those who do not know God due to ignorance will be given less punishment as per Luke 12:48.

To claim that one can be saved for "not knowing God" is NOT the truth especially since Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

If the gospel is God's power to salvation (and it is), then those who do NOT obey the gospel will be lost (See 2 Thes. 1:7-9).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

How would one receive "less punishment" in HELL? Hell is absolute and ultimate punishment. The only eternal alternative is Heaven. There is valid evidence for the idea that persons in Heaven may experience different levels of the beatific vision, depending on their individual capacity for experiencing it. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that different people in Hell experience different degrees of punishment. One who is saved as a result of a virtuous life lived in invincible ignorance of Jesus Christ may not experience the same degree of heavenly bliss as Mother Teresa, but he will experience the fullness of that degree of bliss which he is spiritually capable of experiencing, so he will experience no lack, no want, no absence. There is no reason however for such an innocent individual to be cast into the eternal fires of hell. There is nothing we can do to deserve Heaven - it is a free gift of God. On the other hand, we must do something to deserve Hell. That's the only way to get there. And if, God forbid, we do choose that eternal destiny, our suffering will be total, absolute, complete - just like all the lost.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.

Kevin:
The Gospel will not save you; but it will help you find salvation. We are saved by grace. We know its source through the Gospel. Sanctifying grace is what we are saved by. The source of this is Jesus Christ on Calvary. The channel of the grace is the Church He founded. There is no other. This is the ''sheepfold'' you've referred to. The Catholic Church.

Grace is God's to impart on whomever He wills. But always by His Holy Son. God could have willed for instance, the good Thief to die on his cross hours before his Redeemer; a morning execution. He would never have worshipped the Lord crucified next to him. But the mercy of God extended him the grace; one last opportunity to turn to God in sorrow. The impenitent thief was not afforded grace. He died cursing.

John 10-1 is referring to Jesus Himself. He is the gate into the sheepfold. The sheepfold is His Church, His flock. We are baptised into Him, the only gate into the Church. Baptism brings us into Jesus, our entrance. All others, unbaptised, are outside, and if they think they can get in without baptism, they're wrong. Jesus requires it, for He alone is their baptismal Gate. The Church is His sheepfold.

The man (soul) caught in the banquet without a garment is cast out for not having Sanctifying Grace (the wedding garment). Without which there is no heavenly reward, the ''banquet''. Grace alone will afford entry into heaven.

Grace comes to us from Jesus Christ, His Passion & Death on Calvary. His Church is a channel for the holy sacraments, where grace is given us, as a rule.

But, as the grace is God's first, He can impart it on any soul who repents of sin. Through His Son, nevertheless. And always as the Church's treasure; who lives in the world to distribute all His blessings. --There is no wandering, or groping after God's grace. It is always in plain sight. He entrusted it ALL to the Holy Catholic Church. You will find it there until the end of the world. If you aren't invincibly ignorant of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Please notice how Paul does NOT quote anything from the word of God to back up his claim that one can go to heaven even though they do NOT know Jesus.

Does Luke 12:46 speak of Jesus second coming? Yes it does.

Does Luke 12:47 speak of those who knew Jesus will and "did not do it" that they would be beaten with "many stripes"? Yes it does.

Does Luke 12:48 speak of those who "did not know but were deserving of stripes" that they would beaten with "few"? Yes it does.

These passages ARE most certainly speaking of judgment day.

To claim that one can be "saved as a result of a virtuous life lived in invincible ignorance of Jesus Christ may not experience the same degree of heavenly bliss as Mother Teresa, but he will experience the fullness of that degree of bliss which he is spiritually capable of experiencing, so he will experience no lack, no want, no absence. There is no reason however for such an innocent individual to be cast into the eternal fires of hell." is NOT the truth.

God said in 2 Thess 1:8-9 that Jesus will return, "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

Once again, to claim that one can be saved for "not knowing God" is NOT the truth especially since Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

Let Paul show from the word of God how one can be saved even though he "lived in invincible ignorance of Jesus Christ."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

let me just get my head around this.

say this indian or whatever is born into an isolated tribe where tradition demands that the first-born is to be sacrificed to the trees, that the second-born is to be fed to the wolves,...along the way, his tribe share their women as the Polynesians do; or they regard homosexual relations as the purest form oflove; or murder is OK in certain circumstances; or whatever.....

you get the idea... and he does all this and then gets to heaven because he honestly in good faith thought it was alright.

but those Catholics who, despite knowing that it is sinful, continue with relationships that are regarded as adulterous (you know, married at 18, relationship a disaster but no annulment forthcoming) go to hell for showing the most human of emotions, but the savages as described get to heaven.

is there really such salvation?

and what about people like D.O -- posting all that anti-Catholic nonsense. where is the line drawn. Adolf Hitler most probably totally totally believed taht he was doing the "right thing": is he going to heaven?!?! Osama Bin Laden?!?! how much of this can really depend upon the mens of the individual.

Jesus had his Chosen People.

He commanded the disciples to preach to the nations. why bother? they were better off, surely, following their pagan rules.

confused by all this, am i,

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 24, 2003.

Eugene,

Yes, we are saved by the gospel because that is exactly what Romans 1:16 so states.

Yes, we are also saved by the grace of God however, God tells us in Titus 2:11 that "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men," Please notice verse 12 how this grace also teaches us... "teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age," and how does one do this???

This is exactly what God requires in Acts 17:30, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,"

God’s grace can be accepted or rejected, there is NO middle ground. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who “obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).

Grace alone will NOT “afford entry into heaven” as you so state. One is NOT saved by “grace alone” just as one is NOT saved by “faith alone”.

Jesus desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4).

This knowledge of “the truth” (John 17:17) can be found in the pages of the NT if one has a “noble and good heart” (Luke 8:15) and is willing to be "doers of the word and not hearers only...(James 1:22).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

Only the soul of an invincibly ignorant person who has perfectly repented of his sins will be saved. The doctrine of baptism of desire is largely hypothetical. Souls go to hell if they have not repented. No matter if they're Catholics, or ignorant savages. Sin will always bar a soul from Christ's grace and his salvation.

Yet, a just pagan, for instance; has lived honorably, loved his neighbor. Believes in a supreme being, though not knowing the Gospel through no fault of his own-- would find God's mercy through Jesus Christ IF, his conscience leads him to perfect contrition. His good will toward others, his upright life, and a desire for righteousness; plus hatred for sin, --would have a special chance. Not assurance, just hope. Because God is all-merciful.

All these conditions are clearly dependent on that man or woman. Say, a Mahatma Ghandi. They must necessarily be rare. God would credit the soul as if, baptism into Christ (the only Saviour) was not requested for one single reason. He died in total ignorance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Please, Kevin. Save the semantical fencing. The Gospel brings us to salvation. We can't be saved by hearing it alone. We must be in Christ.

Christ died to save the sinner who had lost grace. Grace is what identifies the soul with our Creator. Just quoting a verse out of proper context is prodding, not good will. If we set all things in order, salvation is: Gospel--Faith--Christ's grace, salvation. You've attempted to say I mean GRACE ALONE. A straw man.

It's clear God wants the soul to come to Him in sanctifying grace. The means of sanctifying are obvious to you and me. Christ will sanctify us. He will impart all actual grace, which leads us to the truth, He will bring us out of darkness, He will perfect us in sanctifying grace.

We must believe, we must repent, we must follow Him. To know this in perfect accordance with his Will we must have the Gospel.

At the point now reached insert the question: Whose Gospel? That of men; or of God? We know the Gospel of Jesus Christ through His apostles. Only they gave us the TRUE Word of God. That inplies a certain risk. If we leave the Church of the apostles; the Gospel can be lost. --We can have the Scriptures but lose the Gospel. Then the acquiring of Jesus Christ's grace; His promise of salvation, is put at risk. We have a few people in this very forum who THINK they've heard the Gospel. But they haven't. They have sola scriptura. A gospel of man. They haven't found the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Eugene said, ?Please, Kevin. Save the semantical fencing. The Gospel brings us to salvation. We can't be saved by hearing it alone. We must be in Christ.?

The gospel does not ?bring us to salvation? but is God?s POWER to salvation. (Rom 1:16). Rom 10:15 states, How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!?

I never said one can be saved by ?hearing it alone? and yes I agree We must be ?in Christ?. Only 2 pasages in the NT tell us how to get ?in Christ? and that is Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:26-27.

You wrote: ?Christ died to save the sinner who had lost grace. Grace is what identifies the soul with our Creator. Just quoting a verse out of proper context is prodding, not good will. If we set all things in order, salvation is: Gospel--Faith--Christ's grace, salvation. You've attempted to say I mean GRACE ALONE. A straw man.?

Your very words above ?GRACE ALONE will afford entry into heaven.? These are YOUR WORDS that I quoted, NO straw man here.

You wrote: ?It's clear God wants the soul to come to Him in sanctifying grace. The means of sanctifying are obvious to you and me. Christ will sanctify us. He will impart all actual grace, which leads us to the truth, He will bring us out of darkness, He will perfect us in sanctifying grace. We must believe, we must repent, we must follow Him. To know this in perfect accordance with his Will we must have the Gospel.?

The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4). God COMMANDS obedience to the gospel. (2 Thes 1:7-9) for it is His power to salvation (Rom 1:16). In order to obey the gospel, one must first HEAR the gospel, for faith comes from hearing God?s word (Romans 10:17), one must BELEIVE the gospel (Mark 1:15), REPENT of their sins for Jesus plainly stated in Luke 24:47, ?and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.? (See Acts 2:38 for fulfillment) CONFESS their belief in the gospel and be baptized INTO Christ (Rom 6:3) in order to have their sins forgiven.

Since the gospel = Jesus DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION. We obey the gospel when we DIE to Sin (REPENTANCE ? Rom 6:2) are BURIED with Him (in BAPTISM) and are RESURRECTED (RAISED to WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE - Rom 6:4). ONLY then can one be ?IN CHRIST?.

Eugene says, ?They have sola scriptura. A gospel of man. They haven't found the truth.?

Jesus says that we will be judged by the very words that He spoke (John 12:48) and we have those words written down for us in the NT. (John 20:31). That IS the truth!!!

I will also ask Eugene the same question I asked Paul: ?Let Eugene show from the word of God how one can be saved even though he "lived in invincible ignorance of Jesus Christ.?

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

OK, Kevin:
Your animosity leaves me no choice. My words were carefully chosen to show you a Catholic view of salvation. But, all you can present is ostentation in reply. You'll serve up a tirade of Bible passages, none relevant to what I said, just to preen before the audience. All your concern is with flaming the Catholic faith here, Kevin. You are transparent.

Please give the Bible passages a rest. We read our Bibles too. You aren't ''breaking ground'' for the Word, Kevin. You're simply a show-off. If you don't want to believe anything I said, it won't offend me. There's the basic difference between a Catholic of good will, Kevin; and his envious opponents. We don't need to put on a show of brilliance. We let you see the truth; for the love of Jesus Christ. If you throw it back in our faces; we don't cry.

It wasn't about US. It was for YOU we made the effort. We have true glory promised us in heaven. You keep the glory here, in your Bible prowess. You have your reward in this life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Eugene wrote: "Your animosity leaves me no choice. My words were carefully chosen to show you a Catholic view of salvation. But, all you can present is ostentation in reply. You'll serve up a tirade of Bible passages, none relevant to what I said, just to preen before the audience. All your concern is with flaming the Catholic faith here, Kevin. You are transparent."

You may have presented a "Catholic view of salvation " however, I showed you what the word of God says one must do to be saved. If what I quoted was in error, then please show me how I do err in my interpretation. This is the answer I expected from you Eugene, instead of trying to show me the error of my way, you just try to make yourself look good and try to say that my "concern is with flaming the Catholic faith". Nothing could be further from the truth. I may be transparent, but the word of God is NO such thing. Those who are sincerely looking to be saved and are willing to do ALL that God has commanded to be saved will obey the truth.

You wrote: "Please give the Bible passages a rest. We read our Bibles too. You aren't ''breaking ground'' for the Word, Kevin. You're simply a show-off."

Once again Eugene, you say "We read our Bibles too", but are unwilling to show from the "Bible" how I did err in the verses I quoted. I am NOT a "show-off" as you so state, but am just trying to get you to see the truth as stated in God?s word concerning those who do not obey the gospel. You claim that one can be saved without obeying the gospel and the word of God does NOT agree with your claim.

You wrote, "If you don't want to believe anything I said, it won't offend me. There's the basic difference between a Catholic of good will, Kevin; and his envious opponents. We don't need to put on a show of brilliance. We let you see the truth; for the love of Jesus Christ. If you throw it back in our faces; we don't cry."

In 1 John 1:1 we are told to "test the spirits, whether they are of God?" and that is what I am doing. If this is what you call "putting on a show of brilliance", so be it.

You wrote: "It wasn't about US. It was for YOU we made the effort. We have true glory promised us in heaven. You keep the glory here, in your Bible prowess. You have your reward in this life." No Eugene, my reward is "in heaven" (Col. 1:5).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 24, 2003.

If you keep up the good fight your reward may be in heaven.

If you are already certain of your place in heaven then your very Ego may prevent your entry.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

The apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 9:27, "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."

We do this as per Paul's instructions in Rom 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 25, 2003.

Kevin,
We do read our bibles. You aren't ''introducing'' the Word of god. In fact, you are distorting its natural sense to uphold your so-called wisdom.

I marvel often at the way ''Bible Christians'' come here to explain what certain verses mean. Who asked you? If you're in error, all you will do is pass on the error>

The catholic Church is our sole guide to the meaning of the scriptures. No one can usurp that power from her. Your sectarian interpretations are NEVER undertaken impartially, Kevin.

Everything you glean from the Bible has its litmus test to pass FIRST. The interpretation you draw, MUST NEVER match a Catholic doctrine.

With this kind of spirit, you have no chance of arriviing at the Truth. The Church does, because she isn't here to dispute with anyone. She only interprets what the apostles taught from the bible. Plus a raft of other TRUTHS not written. Why? Because the apostles revealed them to their church at the beginning.

Not to Bible Christians, Kevin. To Catholic saints.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Eugene,

You wrote, "We do read our bibles. You aren't ''introducing'' the Word of god. In fact, you are distorting its natural sense to uphold your so-called wisdom."

Now that you have made an accusation, my challenge to you is "PROVE IT"!

You wrote, "I marvel often at the way ''Bible Christians'' come here to explain what certain verses mean. Who asked you? If you're in error, all you will do is pass on the error>"

Once again, NO effort is made on his part to show where I did "err in my interpretation". One is just supposed to take his word that I am in error without any proof offered.

You wrote, "The catholic Church is our sole guide to the meaning of the scriptures. No one can usurp that power from her. Your sectarian interpretations are NEVER undertaken impartially, Kevin."

There are NO scriptures which state that "The catholic Church is our sole guide to the meaning of scriptures" and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You wrote, "Everything you glean from the Bible has its litmus test to pass FIRST. The interpretation you draw, MUST NEVER match a Catholic doctrine."

Huh??? This makes no sense whatsoever. I think you meant to say "The interpretation you draw, MUST NEVER contradict a Catholic doctrine." Once again this statement is FALSE. It is the word of God that is the truth (John 17:17) and NOT the church.

You wrote, "With this kind of spirit, you have no chance of arriviing at the Truth. The Church does, because she isn't here to dispute with anyone. She only interprets what the apostles taught from the bible. Plus a raft of other TRUTHS not written. Why? Because the apostles revealed them to their church at the beginning."

There are NO truths that are NOT written. Jesus said that what was written was enough to produce faith (John 20:31), and we will be judged by Jesus words (John 12:48). Please re-read 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Since Paul said, "The Church's teaching on this is quite clear. " and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church (article 847) words it this way: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

The Catholic Church is guilty of teaching FALSE DOCTRINE. To claim that one can be saved without coming through Jesus Christ is NOT the truth according to the word of God. If Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." And He did in John 14:6, then the Catholic Church does err not knowing the truth. Rom 3:10 states, "There is none righteous, no, not one;" The Gentiles were just as guilty as the Jews (See Rom 1:18-32) and there was no distinction for Rom 3:23 states "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,". 1 John 1:8 states, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." We all sin and need to be saved and salvation is ONLY located IN CHRIST. (See Gal 3:26-27).

If one can be saved OUTSIDE OF CHRIST please show me thru the word of God where this is the case.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 25, 2003.

Yes, Christ said ‘"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." no one can dispute that. However, you’re misunderstanding what he said. You see, Kevin, Christ came into the world for our salvation. If he hadn’t, we would still be waiting for the Messiah, and none of us could be forgiven of our sins. The person who doesn’t know Christ can’t possibly accept him, just as he can’t reject him. The fact of the matter is, Christ’s death and resurrection offered us the chance of salvation. We know this, and we believe it. Christ came to bring salvation to ALL men. That is what is meant by the statement ‘except through me’. It was his actual sacrifice that made it possible for any of us to attain eternal life.

Those who cannot accept him as they don’t know him, cannot be held responsible for that ignorance. Christ came to offer them salvation too. If that person lives a life pleasing to God, then that person may be saved, through our Lord Jesus Christ. He may not know Christ and yet be saved, but only because of the sacrifice of our saviour. So it’s not at all contradictory to not know Christ and yet be saved. Remember, too, that to God, all things are possible.

Just think, Kevin, of the joy when that soul meets Christ Jesus in heaven, and then realises just who his Saviour is!

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 25, 2003.

So, if Jesus said that enough was already writeen to produce faith then according to your arguments please enlighten us as to why you are quoting from books or better papyri which had not been written when Jesus was physically walking this earth and preaching? Could these improve on the texts Jesus was referring to.

I guess you are the hypocrite too for adding to what was already enough.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Kevin,
I try so hard not to reply with a bitter edge; because you truly need someone to teach you the truth about the Catholic faith. If I react angrily to the things you post, you'll always be unreceptive. So here I am, offering more of the same good will. In answer to your: ''Once again, NO effort is made on his part to show where I did "err in my interpretation". One is just supposed to take his word that I am in error without any proof offered.''

--You never replied to my protesting of your interpretations. Instead, you expect a text-proof evaluation of your biblical scholarship. Please answer the premise: If you have nothing in the way of authority to foist a meaning on some particular passage, to concoct or distort the meaning; why are we supposed to PROVE (from the scripture) you're mistaken? Your authority is NULL & VOID. I might as well take the biblical interpretations of David Koresh; of Reverend Jim Jones, the poison Kool-Aid preacher, or any ''minister'' in the Bible Belt. All of them have as much authority as you do, NONE. They also ALL deny the authority of Christ's true Church. You deny it, obviously. That means your authority is worthless, far as biblical interpretation is concerned. I have no need to ''prove'' to you from scripture. You have to prove to me. I have the Church. Only in the Church are we assured of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in seeking truth.

But I hope this letdown won't further poison your mind against me. Or against the Catholic faith. You're welcome to remain with us here and keep learning. Your Bible passages are just fine; if only you don't compete against the Holy Spirit. When you do, you are assured of falling into gross error.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

I think you should be disabused of this strange conclusion you drew from my statement:

Huh??? This makes no sense whatsoever. I think you meant to say "The interpretation you draw, MUST NEVER contradict a Catholic doctrine." Once again this statement is FALSE. It is the word of God that is the truth (John 17:17) and NOT the Church.

If I'd meant what you supposed-- about contradicting the Church, that's what I would've said. I said you must never MATCH a Catholic doctrine.

You set this condition because your work in the interpretation is considered useless when it supports a Catholic doctrine. It's your aim beforehand to chuck anything she supports! Therefore, your interpretation denies all the greatest revelations spoken from the very lips of Jesus Christ-- in order to accuse His Church of a flaw.

Your exegesis goes very often to the most ridiculous extremes. Placing some anti-Catholic spin, for instance on the innocuous words, ''Call no man father,''-- It can only be because love of the Catholic faith for you is strictly out. Even the Bible must be conformed to your anti-Catholic bias!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

If Jesus Christ chooses to save those who through no fault of their own did not have the opportunity to know Him, then their salvation DID come through Jesus Christ! Jesus is not obliged to save people according to the rules set down by men!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 25, 2003.

No Sara, there is NO misunderstanding here. Let me ask you a question, Have all men sinned?" Yes they have. Eccl 7:20 states , "For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin." Rom 3:23 states, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Rom 1:18-20 states, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"

God once allowed the nations to walk in their own ways (See Acts 14:16), God once winked at this ignorance, but now COMMANDS ALL MEN TO REPENT. (See Acts 17:30).

There is NO EXCUSE for ignorance, If ignorance were an excuse, we do men a disservice by preaching to them. God says that He WILL TAKE VENGEANCE ON ALL WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD and ON THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. (2 Thes 1:8). Since God CANNOT LIE, we can be assured that is EXACTLY what will take place when Jesus returns.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. " (1 Cor 1:21).

Karl,

I wrote, "Jesus said that what was written was enough to produce faith (John 20:31), and we will be judged by Jesus words (John 12:48). "

To which you replied, "So, if Jesus said that enough was already writeen to produce faith then according to your arguments please enlighten us as to why you are quoting from books or better papyri which had not been written when Jesus was physically walking this earth and preaching? Could these improve on the texts Jesus was referring to. I guess you are the hypocrite too for adding to what was already enough."

Does John 20:31 state that what is written is enough to produce faith??? Yes or No??? We do not have all of what Jesus said and did because John 21:25 states, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. " Please do tell he how I am a "hypocrite too for adding to what was already enough"???

Eugene,

You wrote, "You never replied to my protesting of your interpretations. Instead, you expect a text-proof evaluation of your biblical scholarship."

I did not expect a text-proof evaluation of my biblical scholarship, I asked you to show me where my interpretation did err, and you did NOT even bother to do this except to come back and say "I try so hard not to reply with a bitter edge" which makes NO sense especially since you DID NOT even bother to correct me.

You wrote, "Please answer the premise: If you have nothing in the way of authority to foist a meaning on some particular passage, to concoct or distort the meaning; why are we supposed to PROVE (from the scripture) you're mistaken? Your authority is NULL & VOID."

You have NOT proven that I have NO authority to interpret a passage to begin with, so your premise is FALSE. Since the Catholic Church tells you what to believe, you should have no problem showing me the error of my way, instead all you do is tell me that my authority is "NULL & VOID." God says that we are to, "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:21, 1 John 4:1).

You wrote, "I might as well take the biblical interpretations of David Koresh; of Reverend Jim Jones, the poison Kool-Aid preacher, or any ''minister'' in the Bible Belt. All of them have as much authority as you do, NONE. They also ALL deny the authority of Christ's true Church. You deny it, obviously. That means your authority is worthless, far as biblical interpretation is concerned. I have no need to ''prove'' to you from scripture. You have to prove to me. I have the Church. Only in the Church are we assured of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in seeking truth. But I hope this letdown won't further poison your mind against me. Or against the Catholic faith. You're welcome to remain with us here and keep learning. Your Bible passages are just fine; if only you don't compete against the Holy Spirit. When you do, you are assured of falling into gross error."

What does God say in 2 Tim 3:13??? The truth can be known (See John 8:32). God?s word IS TRUTH. (John 17:17) and we are admonished to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word. (2 Tim 2:15). Satan knows that faith comes by hearing God?s word, that is why he is trying to steal it from men?s hearts. (See Luke 8:12). It is NOT the Church that produces truth, it is the word of God.

Ok, so I made a mistake and did not understand your comment on matching Catholic doctrine, for this I apologize.

You said, ''Your exegesis goes very often to the most ridiculous extremes. Placing some anti-Catholic spin, for instance on the innocuous words, ''Call no man father,''-- It can only be because love of the Catholic faith for you is strictly out. Even the Bible must be conformed to your anti-Catholic bias!''

If my exegesis goes very often to the most ridiculous extremes, I do not see you trying to show me Catholic doctrine which corrects my exegesis do you? No, all you do is throw out these accusations with NO PROOF offered. This is a typical response from you Eugene. I did not even bring up the words you claim that I did such as ''Call no man father, '' nice try.

Paul,

You wrote, ''If Jesus Christ chooses to save those who through no fault of their own did not have the opportunity to know Him, then their salvation DID come through Jesus Christ! Jesus is not obliged to save people according to the rules set down by men!''

What rules for salvation are you claiming that are set down by men??? Jesus already stated what would happen when He returns, He WILL TAKE VENGEANCE ON ALL WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD and ON THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. (2 Thes 1:8). Since God CANNOT LIE, we can be assured that is EXACTLY what will take place when Jesus returns. If you deny these words, then you are guilty of calling God a liar.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 25, 2003.

Hi Kevin,

I briefly read through this thread and note that the scripture you quoted here, He "WILL TAKE VENGEANCE ON ALL WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD and ON THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST."

How can they obey the gospel if they have never HEARD the gospel? Because all men, everywhere in every nation, in every tribe, in every tongue can live up to the light that God gives them through the light of creation, and through their consciences.

Romans Chap 1: 19 . . . because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power nad divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (THE LIGHT OF CREATION)

So these folk, who HAVE NEVER HEARD THE GOSPEL through no fault of their own will be judged fairly by our merciful God. ISN'T HE GOOD, and righteous, and just and merciful and gracious to ALL regardless of what country or remote village they live in?

Romans Chapter 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Our God is an awesome God! His justice is perfect, His mercy is endless! His lovingkindness endures forever.

Love

Gail

P.S. I think you would be utterly shocked to find that the Catechism is quite amazingly based on scripture. Yes, we do have a different rule of faith than your's. Our rule of faith is scripture AND the commentaries of those scriptures handed down to us by GREAT men of the faith, men astute in theology, men that even Protestants revere; such as Augustine, Clement, Jerome, Origen. The Church has had 2000 years to study and meditate on these scriptures, to expand their understanding, and to pass those teachings on from generation to generation! That's the beauty and strength of our Church, ie, our ancestors in the faith have built upon the foundation of the apostles, with Christ Jesus our cornerstone, and has built an impenetrable fortress -- for She stands like a rock!

I urge you to pick up a Catechism for yourself. It is replete with teachings based on scripture and the teachings of our fathers.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 26, 2003.

Kevin,

Jesus also stated "if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12:7) He said this when the Pharisees were trying to accuse Him - God - of not observing the Sabbath according to their interpretation of the scriptures. He told them He is Lord over the Sabbath, not restricted by it.

God is love - so Jesus says He desires compassion. God is just - so Jesus says He will not condemn the innocent. You may quote scripture to Him, telling Him why He cannot save certain people. But He is Lord over salvation, and will save whom He wishes. Good people who are innocently unaware of the message of salvation will not be treated by a just God as equivalent to those who have spent their lives doing evil and persecuting Christ. Jesus is not restricted to acting "by the book", or by your interpretation of the book. He is God. God alone may judge.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

Gail,

Did you read the first part of 2 Thes 1:8? Which states Jesus "will take vengeance on ALL WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD"??

People who have not heard the gospel through no fault of their own are still guilty before God "for ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God". (Rom 3:23). The "wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). The term "death" denotes a spiritual separation from God (cf. Isa. 59:1, 2).

God does not want anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), however He does state that NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY which leads to life and there are FEW who find it. (Matt 7:14).

That is why the apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 5:11, "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men…"

This is also why Jesus commanded the apostles in Mark 16:15-16, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

As I said before, there WILL BE different levels of punishment for those who did not know the truth. (See Luke 12:47-48, Matt 10:15, Matt 11:22, Matt 11:24, Heb 10:29).

Paul, You wrote, "Jesus also stated "if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12:7) He said this when the Pharisees were trying to accuse Him - God - of not observing the Sabbath according to their interpretation of the scriptures. He told them He is Lord over the Sabbath, not restricted by it."

In this passage of scripture, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for neglecting the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faith (See Matt 23:23) because He also said in 1 Sam 15:22, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams." He also said in Prov 21:3, "To do righteousness and justice Is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." This is why the Pharisees were condemned!!!

You wrote, "God is love - so Jesus says He desires compassion. God is just - so Jesus says He will not condemn the innocent. You may quote scripture to Him, telling Him why He cannot save certain people. But He is Lord over salvation, and will save whom He wishes. Good people who are innocently unaware of the message of salvation will not be treated by a just God as equivalent to those who have spent their lives doing evil and persecuting Christ. Jesus is not restricted to acting "by the book", or by your interpretation of the book. He is God. God alone may judge."

God requires OBEDIENCE for Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY Him. (See Heb 5:9). Jesus said He will take vengeance on ALL who DO NOT KNOW GOD (2 Thes 1:8), why do you reject what He has PLAINLY stated in His word? This is NOT my interpretation, this is what God says, NO interpretation is required.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 26, 2003.

Hi Kevin, yes I did read the first part of the scripture as well. My point is simply that there are those (and probably a scant few) who know God, without knowing His name. God searches the hearts and minds of every human heart. If a heart, who sees the the perfection of nature, the witness of creation, and longs and yearns to know his maker, who lives up the call of holiness according to his understanding, our God who is just and true and longs for fellowship with His creation, is there! He meets that person EVEN IN THEIR IGNORANCE. That is the point of the remaining scriptures that I quoted. God judges the heart, the intent, the motive. He knows who are his children. He knows who longs to please Him, and like you say, to KNOW Him.

And yes, of course, we ARE ALL SINNERS in need of grace, grace and more grace! Without grace, all of us perish in our sins.

But having said that, scripture teaches, and SO DOES THE CHURCH, that those who WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY reject Christ and His grace are lost and will suffer eternally in hell.

Cheers,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 26, 2003.

Kevin, I noted in your response to Paul you quote "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Yes that is precisely right. But there must be a presentation of the Gospel, before a condemnation can be uttered for non belief.

We are talking here about those who have not heard, right? (Just wanna clarify)

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 26, 2003.

Gail,

You wrote, "Hi Kevin, yes I did read the first part of the scripture as well. My point is simply that there are those (and probably a scant few) who know God, without knowing His name. God searches the hearts and minds of every human heart. If a heart, who sees the the perfection of nature, the witness of creation, and longs and yearns to know his maker, who lives up the call of holiness according to his understanding, our God who is just and true and longs for fellowship with His creation, is there! He meets that person EVEN IN THEIR IGNORANCE."

Okay Gail, please point out in scripture where God has stated that "He meets that person EVEN IN THEIR IGNORANCE."??? If ignorant people can be saved, then why even bother to preach to them or try to persuade them to obey the gospel because it would be better if they had not even heard of Jesus if this is the case. Error begets error.

To claim that one can be saved without knowing Jesus you are ignorant of what God has said. Not only do you reject what 2 Thes 1:8 states, you are placing your judgment over what God has said. Who can believe it??? God says that He will take vengeance on ALL who do not know God, and you reject this statement. I pray that God will have mercy on your soul for calling Him a liar. Please go back and re-read John 12:48.

You wrote, "That is the point of the remaining scriptures that I quoted. God judges the heart, the intent, the motive. He knows who are his children. He knows who longs to please Him, and like you say, to KNOW Him."

Yes God knows the heart, but we will be judged by our works, NOT by what we INTENDED to do. (See Rev 20:12).

You wrote, "And yes, of course, we ARE ALL SINNERS in need of grace, grace and more grace! Without grace, all of us perish in our sins. But having said that, scripture teaches, and SO DOES THE CHURCH, that those who WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY reject Christ and His grace are lost and will suffer eternally in hell."

Yes, those who reject Christ will suffer however, please go back and re-read 1 Pet 4:17-18.

God said in Rom 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,"

The ONLY way one can be saved from God's wrath is through the shed blood of Jesus. (See Rom 5:9).

You wrote, "Kevin, I noted in your response to Paul you quote "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Yes that is precisely right. But there must be a presentation of the Gospel, before a condemnation can be uttered for non belief. We are talking here about those who have not heard, right? (Just wanna clarify)."

Yes, we are talking about those who have not heard.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 26, 2003.

"People who have not heard the gospel through no fault of their own are still guilty before God "for ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God". (Rom 3:23). The "wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). The term "death" denotes a spiritual separation from God (cf. Isa. 59:1, 2)"

A: You are mixing two concepts here. Of course people who have not heard the gospel are still guilty before God for their personal sins which they commit againt their conscience as dictated by the natural law. But they obviously are NOT guilty before God for not having heard the gospel, since they had no choice in the matter. No-one can be personally guilty of something they have not chosen to do, or not do.

"That is why the apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 5:11, "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade menŠ"

A: Notice the essential word here - "knowing". If the Apostles did not know the Lord, would they have been responsible for not trying to persuade men concerning that which they did not know?

"This is also why Jesus commanded the apostles in Mark 16:15-16, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

A: Belief presupposes hearing. One cannot expect anyone to believe that which he has never heard of. Romans 10:13 for "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. But how will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:13-14) Therefore if anyone is responsible for the lack of faith of those who have not heard, it is Christians who have not preached the truth, whenther by word or by action, when they had the opportunity.

"As I said before, there WILL BE different levels of punishment for those who did not know the truth"

A: As I said before, there may be different levels of eternal joy, but there cannot be different levels of damnation.

"In this passage of scripture, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for neglecting the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faith (See Matt 23:23) because He also said in 1 Sam 15:22, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams." He also said in Prov 21:3, "To do righteousness and justice Is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." This is why the Pharisees were condemned!!!

"God requires OBEDIENCE for Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY Him"

A: God does not require obedience to a command which has not been heard. That would be not only unjust, but irrational. God has commanded that the truth be presented by the Church to the whole world, but that process has not yet been completed, and some have not yet heard the truth. Therefore, compassion, justice, and rationality would all demand that "of him who has received less, less is expected".

"Jesus said He will take vengeance on ALL who DO NOT KNOW GOD (2 Thes 1:8), why do you reject what He has PLAINLY stated in His word? This is NOT my interpretation, this is what God says, NO interpretation is required"

A: Interpretation is ALWAYS required. Without interpretation the scriptures are black marks on paper. Interpretation is the aspect of reading which converts such intrinsically meaningless symbols on a page into ideas and concepts in a mind. And here we see the sad and obvious result of the Protestant approach - simplistic, hyperliteral self-interpretation, without regard tor what scripture as a whole reveals. The figurative content of this passage is plainly revealed by the wording. First, God does not literally take "vengeance" on anyone, because vengeance is an act of evil. Can a parent take vengeance on his children? Yes, an imperfect human father might. But a perfect Father cannot do evil to His children. Secondly, vengeance means retribution for harm inflicted. There is nothing a human being can do to inflict harm on God - therefore there would be no motive for divine vengeance, even if God were capable of it. Thirdly, while any form of vengeance is innately evil, vengeance inflicted for mere ignorance would be a double evil, a grave act of injustice. So you see, what the scriptures PLAINLY state to the casual reader is often far less than the true meaning. Which is why Protestantism continues to fragment into more and more conflicting denominations, over faulty human interpretation of God's Word. An interpretation of a passage which directly conflicts with the very nature of God, as revealed to us through the rest of scripture is, de facto, wrong.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

Kevin is deliberately stubborn. This is how he pretends to support his ''authority'' as a private interpreter of the scriptures:

''What does God say in 2 Tim 3:13??? The truth can be known (See John 8:32). God?s word IS TRUTH''.

A pompous statement by an ignorant exegesist. Timothy was a pastor. Paul wrote his pastoral epistles to those who were called by the laying on of hands. These men, Timothy and Titus were Catholic priests. The word was given them by Paul; it was written-- as well as oral tradition.

Now Kevin, following men's false teaching, thinks he can assimilate these words from Paul to Catholics as his own ''authority''.

But, Kevin isn't counted among the faithful. For him then to presume he can find all truth in scripture begs the question. A heretic is always sure to claim he speaks for the Holy Spirit. We know he can't. He's cut off from Christ's Holy Church.

Kevin states with that same supercilious confidence: ''The truth can be known (See John 8:32). God? the word IS TRUTH''--

I see! If you mangle and misconstrue John 6:54 and on, how can anyone say you've seen the ''truth'', -- ??? You look for the truth; that much I'll grant. You haven't seen it until now-- in a Catholic forum. --Because here you might find somebody whom Paul addressed in the pastoral sense: ''I charge thee in the sight of God and Christ Jesus ; who will judge the living and the dead (not a judge culling from scripture), preach the word, be urgent in season, out of season. Reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching (We are now teaching you). For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears will heap up to themselves (self- ordained ministers) teachers according to their own lusts (The ''reformers'') and they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.'' (2 Tim, 4:1- 4).

Lusts? For false prophets it's the pride in their own gifts. Fables are your idolatry of the bible and sola ''scrip-sure it is''. You have the same authority to tell others what a scriptural truth is, as Rev. Jim Jones; i.e., as a false prophet does. --Plenty of nothing.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

Paul,

No, I am not mixing two concepts here at all. I did NOT say "They are NOT guilty before God for not having heard the gospel" now did I? I merely stated that those who did not hear the gospel still sin and the wages of sin is DEATH.

Yes, Belief presupposes hearing. Then you quoted Rom 10:13-14 but neglected to quote Rom 10:18 which states, "But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world." So much for your statement "One cannot expect anyone to believe that which he has never heard of".

You wrote, "As I said before, there may be different levels of eternal joy, but there cannot be different levels of damnation."

I gave specific scripture references where this is in fact the case and once again you reject what has been written. Here are the verses again for you, (See Luke 12:47-48, Matt 10:15, Matt 11:22, Matt 11:24, Heb 10:29).

You wrote, "God does not require obedience to a command which has not been heard. That would be not only unjust, but irrational. God has commanded that the truth be presented by the Church to the whole world, but that process has not yet been completed, and some have not yet heard the truth. Therefore, compassion, justice, and rationality would all demand that "of him who has received less, less is expected."

Really??? God does require obedience or else Jesus died in vain. God said in Rom 6:16, "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" This most certainly says that sin leads to DEATH and death is separation from God.

You wrote, "Interpretation is ALWAYS required. Without interpretation the scriptures are black marks on paper. Interpretation is the aspect of reading which converts such intrinsically meaningless symbols on a page into ideas and concepts in a mind. And here we see the sad and obvious result of the Protestant approach - simplistic, hyperliteral self-interpretation, without regard tor what scripture as a whole reveals. The figurative content of this passage is plainly revealed by the wording."

You do err Paul, there is NO figurative language in this passage. How hard is it to understand the words that God will take, "vengeance on those who do not know God"

You said, "First, God does not literally take "vengeance" on anyone, because vengeance is an act of evil. God said in Rom 12:19, "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord." God also said in Heb 10:30, "For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." So Paul's statement that God does not literally take "vengeance" on anyone is FALSE. Go back and re-read Romans 1:18.

God said in Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, " however, the reception of God’s grace is CONDITIONAL. Grace is ONLY accessed when men OBEY THE GOSPEL, for it is God’s power to salvation. (Rom 1:16).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 26, 2003.

Dear Paul:
It's my pleasure to congratulate you for your stupendous corrections of poor Kevin's porous package of do's and don't's. Your swift disposal of his biblical objections is perfect.

That's why I suggested Kevin is really learning now. Despite his protestations, he picks up the message. It's God alone who will furnish the heat exchange. You just place Kevin on the hot seat. That's enough. He'll benefit in the long run. One day hopefully, he'll thank you! All Glory to Our Holy Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ! Amen /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

Frankwrote, "God does not require obedience to a command which has not been heard. That would be not only unjust, but irrational,''

''Really???--'' Says Kevon: ''God does require obedience or else Jesus died in vain.''

AND: ''whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" This most certainly says that sin leads to DEATH and death is separation from God.'' --Maybe Kevin honestly didn't understand. Frank wasn't referring to sin. Frank was telling Kevin all that God's JUSTICE makes imperative. Everybody agrees sin will damn the unrepentent. But, God will not damn a soul for not having heard about Him. That wouldn't be God. God is infinite Perfection. Not a draconian dictator. Kevin is a mess today!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

I love these bible thumpers, they chase their tail and are never the wiser. Lost in their endless proof or is that poof texts.

I was there once, what a waste of time. When I wised up I realized I was blinded by my own brilliance. Then I was glad that my mother had raised me as a Catholic, inspite of it all. God bless you Mom, you are a Saint. May I half the faith you have to guide me through my struggles and half the love you show, still, after all your years and I will be twice the man I am with plenty more to go thanks to your sweet example. Even the warts do not justify being anything but Catholic. They are just a reminder to be humble.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.

Kevin, I also believe that God does not send children to hell either, Kevin until they reach an age of reason. I cannot prove that in scripture, apart from King David who lost his child and said he would see him in the afterlife.

But I guess you must believe that children who cannot make a confession of faith also perish because of their ignorance, as well as retarded people who are ignorant of course through no fault of all.

So, Kevin, do you believe children who die before the age of reason will perish eternally?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 26, 2003.

Karl, you are very moving for your joy in the good mother who taught you. I feel just like that about mine. She's 88 yrs now, and every time we say goodby she blesses me in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Gail; you might wish to draw Kevin into a discussion with ''do you believe,--?'' But I'm afraid all he has for reply is another roll of Bible quotes; each one irrelevent to your question. That's a bibliolater for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

Please notice that NOT ONE shred of evidence is provided from scripture to support the notion that one can be saved if they have never heard the gospel. Please go back and read 1 John 4:5-6.

Gail,

Children are innocent because they have no sin. (See Matt 19:14).

Scripture is not specific on those who are retarded however, it is my belief that they will have an opportunity to be saved.

I do not believe that God will send any children to hell, because there is no such thing as original sin. The Jews in the OT did not believe the ridiculous notion of original sin, otherwise God would have provided a remedy for them to implement to correct the problem.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 27, 2003.

"Please notice that NOT ONE shred of evidence is provided from scripture to support the notion that one can be saved if they have never heard the gospel"

Kevin,

That is not a problem, since not one shred of evidence is provided from scripture to support the modern notion that all Christian truth can be found in scripture - an idea no Christian ever heard of until a few hundred years ago. Searching the scripture for everything you need to know is a recent tradition of men. Protestants have no choice in this regard, even though it obviously has not worked for 450 years, since they have rejected the genuine source of authoritative truth Jesus provided. But for actual Bible-believing Christians, the Church, not the Bible, is the foundation of truth, because that's what the Bible says. For Bible-believing Christians, whatsoever the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and he who hears the Church hears the Lord. We know that because the Bible clearly says so. Once you know these essential Biblical truths, you don't spend your time in a frantic, futile search of the Bible for every spiritual truth. Instead you just look for that truth where the Bible tells you to look - to the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church of the Living God (1 Tim 3:15).

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Saint Martial of Limoges (died A.D. 165): "All who do not confess Christ to be true God shall go into eternal fire."

There are no escape clauses in this teaching. We must stop dialoguing and start evangelizing.

-- Mama (mama70@faithkitchen.com), June 27, 2003.

Dear Mama,

This is not a teaching of the Church. It is a personal opinion of a single member of the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Dear Kevin:
''NOT ONE shred of evidence is provided from scripture to support the notion that one can be saved if they have never heard the Gospel.'' You think.

In fact it's protestants who misconstrue entire chapters of scripture with only one aim, to support their own notions.

Catholics believe the revealed truth. Christ revealed every doctrine we follow in faith. But the so-called ''reformation'' is mainly rejection of revealed truths. In opposition to God's divine Wisdom. Such as your unholy rejection of this revelation: Original Sin. No one invented it, we know God has punished it from the primeval past until now. It's why all creatures die. Death is our portion since Adam disobeyed his Creator in the Garden of Eden.

It's easy to see by your own words that you've never understood the Holy Gospel. The scriptures are a total blank to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

I will ask my mother to pray for your mother and perhaps they will meet in heaven and pray us both in with their intercessions!

Please forgive this insertion about a different thread but since it involves my mother I want to share it with you.

She was one of the witnesses in my annulment case and corresponded, rather than interviewed with the tribunal due to ill health.

Anyway, she was openly called a liar by the American Tribunalists when her written testimony spoke only well of the actions of my wife, which she was an eyewitness to from the time we dated, well before or wedding. They stated that her testimony was not trustworthy BECAUSE she said nothing bad about my wife. So, her witness could not be used to support the contention of the American Tribunal that my wife both lacked sufficient discretion and was unable to assume the obligations of marriage at the time we married, which is half of what they ruled in First Instance.

For my mother to bear false witness to a Church Trinunal is even beyond my wildest fantasy.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

"That is not a problem, since not one shred of evidence is provided from scripture to support the modern notion that all Christian truth can be found in scripture - an idea no Christian ever heard of until a few hundred years ago."

I'd like to point out Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17... "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If Paul states here that the word of God has been given to Christians so that we may be complete, who are we to argue?

And as for the authority debate... I turn to Matthew 28, in verse 18, as Jesus is giving His apostles the Great Commission. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." The authority does not reside in a church, in human beings, or even in the Bible, although the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Authority resides in Jesus, and as an extension of that, God. No other power is needed.

-- Aaron (noaddress@email.com), June 27, 2003.

Dear Aaron,
What Saint Paul wrote in his epistle to Timothy is true. This was one of Paul's pastoral epistles. He spoke to pastors as a pastor and apostle. Not to the offspring of a ''reformed'' church. He was addressing PRIESTS of the Catholic Church, as his phrase, ''that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work,'' shows us. He wasn't treating of scripture as the domain of just every free-lance preacher, such as Kevin or you.

I don't mean to discourage you from reading the epistles. But you ought to realise what they were about.

Theses parts of Timothy are not supportive of anyones' private interpretation of the Bible. They confer authority on no one; and much less the opponents of Christ's Church, the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Dear Aaron,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

A: Well of course it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be scripture.

"and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

A: No argument there. Scripture is most certainly profitable (or "useful", as many translations have it). But that statement is miles away from the idea of scripture as the sole source of Christian truth.

"that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If Paul states here that the word of God has been given to Christians so that we may be complete, who are we to argue?"

A: Who is arguing? Certainly an understanding of scriptural references to doctrines of the faith provides a more thorough grasp of those doctrines. But the point is, the doctrines were given by Christ to the Church - verbally - long before the Bible existed. It is indeed profitable to have a collection of writings of the time, to help us achieve a clearer perspective of such teachings - but it is not really essential. The Catholic Church would be teaching the same doctrinal truths today that it taught in the early, pre-Biblical years of Christianity, even if it had never decided to gather some of its writings into a book. The teachings of the true Church do not come from a book. The book came from the teachings of the true Church.

"Jesus is giving His apostles the Great Commission. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." The authority does not reside in a church, in human beings, or even in the Bible, although the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

A: That is incorrect. Jesus ascended. He no longer walks the earth. The only possible way His authority can be active upon the earth is through a chosen administrator of that authority - a Vicar - who can guide Christ's Church not by his own personal authority, but with the authority of Christ Himself, delegated to His personally selected and ordained Vicar, and sybolized by the keys to the kingdom - the universal symbol of AUTHORITY. It is precisely this authority - divine authority entrusted to specified men - which keeps His Church constantly in the fullness of truth, while others fragment into thousands of conflicting denominations. The cause of this disintegration is one thing - lack of any genuine authority. Unity, which Christ identified as a mark of His Church, cannot exist without authority; and truth cannot exist without unity.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Paul,

You wrote, "That is not a problem, since not one shred of evidence is provided from scripture to support the modern notion that all Christian truth can be found in scripture - an idea no Christian ever heard of until a few hundred years ago. Searching the scripture for everything you need to know is a recent tradition of men."

Paul, it is obvious that you do err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God for Proverbs 2:1-5 states, "My son, if you receive my words,And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment,And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD,And find the knowledge of God."

This is also why God stated in Proverbs 8:4-17, "To you, O men, I call,And my voice is to the sons of men. O you simple ones, understand prudence,And you fools, be of an understanding heart. Listen, for I will speak of excellent things,And from the opening of my lips will come right things; For my mouth will speak truth;Wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; Nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands,And right to those who find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver,And knowledge rather than choice gold; For wisdom is better than rubies,And all the things one may desire cannot be compared with her. I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,And find out knowledge and discretion. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom;I am understanding, I have strength. By me kings reign,And rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles,All the judges of the earth. I love those who love me,And those who seek me diligently will find me."

This is EXACTLY what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. Who are those that love God? See John 14:15.

You wrote, "But for actual Bible-believing Christians, the Church, not the Bible, is the foundation of truth, because that's what the Bible says."

Once again you do err, not knowing the truth, the seed is the Word of God, NOT the Church. (See Luke 8:11). God said in Psalm 119:160 and John 17:17 that His word is truth!!!

Eugene,

If Catholics "believe the revealed truth" as you so state, they would not take every opportunity to cast doubt and cause people to not believe what God plainly reveals in the NT. It is the Catholic Church that rejects the Bible so they can place their tradition above the word of God in order to prop up their false doctrines. Especially that of "original sin", which is a "unholy doctrine", because God nowhere specifies that we are all guilty of Adam's sin. We all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, which is death and NOTHING more. Go back and re-read Ezekiel 18:20.

Your comment, "It's easy to see by your own words that you've never understood the Holy Gospel. The scriptures are a total blank to you" was really not necessary now was it??? You have not proven this to be the case and why do you continue to throw insults at those who disagree with you?? Please go back and re-read 1 Corinthians chapter 13, especially verse 4.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 27, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

I suggest you take a brief hiatus to meditate upon the blatantly obvious fact that " what God plainly reveals in the NT" is vastly different from one Protestant sect to another. That fact alone pretty much eliminates any credibility regarding Protestant claims to know "what God plainly reveals in the NT". Once you work out that natty little problem, then come back and attack the unchanging, unified, pure, true doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is plain silly for chaos to be attempting to correct unity where truth is concerned. Truth demands unity of belief. Therefore denominationalism is clearly riddled with untruth. So please get your own house in order before supposing that you can legitimately critique the 2,000 year old beliefs of the original Christian Church. Because right now the very tradition from which you are speaking invalidates your words even as you speak them.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Please reply to Paul's objections, Kevin. You maintain all there is to be seen in the Holy Bible is self- evident and clear. You see ''only'' truth. But Paul put his finger on your mistake. Every so called Bible Christian gives his private version of the truth as the proper interpretation when he searches the scriptures. Including you. But you have nothing approaching unity of belief or communion. You are united in just a single thing; denying the Catholic Church.

And YES, reading the Bible. But not for purposes of universal truth. Only for your subjective versions, even if they collide with everybody else's. No one has authority over you. All your sects break apart over doctrinal disputes and controversy.

Why did you purposely skip over my direct questions about private Bible interpretation; as practiced by Rev. Jim Jones and David Koresh??? They weren't any more authorised than you. Why did Pres. Jimmy Carter break with the Southern Baptist Church, after having been a pillar all his life? If you all partake of the truth, by sola scriptura, Where is the UNITY?

Your last comments: ''the scriptures . . . a total blank to you-- was really not necessary now was it???'' --Well, dear Kevin. I'm sorry to say you don't understand them. You trust no one else's ability to understand them and you won't tolerate correction. If the Church corrects me, I deny myself and concede to her authority, because she is founded on the holy apostles by Christ Himself.

You won't concede anything. You are your own Christ and apostolic college, your own Pope your own Peter and Paul. You fail to agree with the four evangelists in crucial matters. It becomes necessary for you to delve into the book of Proverbs to rebut the plain truth! The scriptures are a blank to you, Kevin, I'm sorry. It is definitely necessary to say it. May God clear your spiritual confusion someday, we pray.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Crud. CRUD! Well, this thread is a fine piece of work; behold, the bloated corpse of a once young and beautiful thread. Kevin had to come and troll it to death, mutate it beyond recognition, leaving randir and Ian with scraps off of a table of gluttony.

Once upon a time this thread had nothing to do with Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, or anything of the sort. Here we had two people who asked honest questions, but the debate had to get dumped on the answers like pigeon dung on a fresh nutritious sandwich. Spoiled.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

God is not responsible for all the religious bigotry and confusion throughout the world. Christ is not the cause of religious division. No, it isn't God nor is it the Bible. Instead man is the cause for this confusion.

Man is responsible for the division and bedlam in religion, not only in the First century, but today as well. Sadly, many people today don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and are too eager to believe anything that someone tells them they must do in order to be saved except read their own Bibles and find out for themselves what God requires of them. God had this to say about them, "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." (Rom 10:2). The same was true of the Jews as he said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hos 4:6).

Only by abiding in God's word will we remain God's disciples. Jesus said in John 8:31-32, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

God said in 2 John 9, ?Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.? Those who do NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ do NOT have God.

We are COMMANDED to, ?Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.? (2 Tim 2:15).

Let?s put this to the test, denominations teach that in order to be saved, one can "Pray for Salvation" and this is NOT in accordance with the word of God since nowhere is anyone commanded to do this in order to be saved, hence this is false doctrine. Since this is the case, those who are in denominations DO NOT HAVE GOD.

John had this to say about these people, John 8:47 says, "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

John 9:31 also says, "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him."

Denominations go to the opposite extreme of Catholicism because they teach that one can be saved by ?faith only? whereas Catholics teach that one can be saved by ?meritorious works? (i.e. Penance). (Please correct me if I am wrong).

Denominations teach that baptism is NOT for the remission of sins (which is NOT true) and Catholicism teaches that baptism is FOR the remission of sins (which is correct) however, Catholics transgress the command of God when they say that babies can be baptized to wash away ?original sin? which is NOT the truth according to the word of God. So, Catholics are guilty of teaching false doctrine and DO NOT HAVE GOD. There are too many Catholic doctrines which are foreign to the NT teaching that space does not permit me to elaborate. To claim that one can be baptized (an infant) with NO faith in the gospel of Christ is NOT in accordance with NT teaching. Go back and re-read Hebrews 11:6. To claim that one can be baptized to have their sins washed away and then later come to faith in Jesus one has to be ignorant of Biblical teaching on this subject. The Holy Spirit does NOT infuse someone with faith, faith ONLY comes by hearing God?s word. (Rom 10:17).

One more thing, there is NO such thing as hyphenated Christian. The word of God knows nothing of a Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or Pentecostal etc. denomination.

The Catholic Church is the mother of division and is the cause of all of these man made churches, for ALL of them owe their existence to this Church.

The Catholic Church claims to have an unbroken line of popes back to the 1st century, but how many of those popes were excommunicated and called heretics etc? There were times where even their own people didn?t know who the was the true pope or which one was the anti-pope.

There is ONE church, but it most certainly is NOT the Catholic Church nor is it any of these denominations that are in existence today.

The ONLY way to have unity, is to go back to the Bible and the Bible ONLY as our rule of faith and practice.

The wishes of God are expressed when Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:10, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Here is the FINAL ANSWER: Paul told Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16, "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you."

Here is GOD's PROMISE to the faithful: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." (Rev 3:21).

Here is GOD's PROMISE to the unfaithful: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 27, 2003.

Kevin says: ''God is not responsible for all the religious bigotry and confusion throughout the world. Christ is not the cause of religious diff--''

Why did you bring in God to buffer your love of private interpretation? I didn't place any blame on Him at all. He manages very well thank you, to sustain His Holy Son's Church; and to preserve the complete truth of his apostles; entrusted to her care.

It is of YOUR sectarian communities, we're speaking. All claim the Bible is self-interpreting. All have reliance on sola scriptura, with no authoritative Church to protect them from mistaking men's notions for God's Word. They fall to pieces all believing the truth is their own faith. Just as the false prophets have. Bible Christians like Koresh and the Kool-Aid preacher Rev. Jim Jones. You and they are all in the same boat, and it isn't the Bark of Peter the Apostle. You have no STANDARD, Kevin. Only what strikes your fancy as you pore the scriptures. No Holy Spirit. I am surely not implying you are an evil man, like those two imposters. Yet, they interpreted scripture under the very same premise you do. That it is not necessary for a Universal Church; a Catholic fount of truth, to bother them with her standard interpretation. An interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And, if you try to assert the Holy Spirit is teaching you from scripture, you're back to the first problem: Koresh and Rev. Jones thought the very same thing! And their flocks believed them!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

''The ONLY way to have unity, is to go back to the Bible and the Bible ONLY as our rule of faith and practice.''

______ _____________ ___________________ ____________

Kevin, you haven't a leg to stand on. This is the usual Bible thumper's tripe.

First of all; the Catholic Church upholds all, completely everything in the Holy Bible. YOU deny many key articles of the true faith that are plainly taught in the Bible!. The Church is the source in our world of the Bible, which God entrusted to her. You wouldn't have any Bible except for the Catholic Church.

She has the first and the only inerrant interpretation of the Word. No opponent of the Church can claim to know better than she what the Bible says.

Secondly, and once more ! If the Bible alone brings us into unity, why are you just one out of 20,000 separate sects, none of which give each other any respect, far as what they read in their own Bibles? They'll disagree down the line with what you think is in the Bible. Is that ''unity'' --from the Bible? You must be blind if you think ''The ONLY way to have unity, is to go back to the Bible and the Bible ONLY as our rule of faith and practice.'' The proof of just the reverse is right in front of your eyes! Nothing can bring unity back to your diverse faiths. Particularly the Bible alone!

All your so called Born Again sects are going to final extinction, or else reuniting at last with Christ's true Church. I think the latter. It has to happen, because He wills it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Kevin said, "Denominations go to the opposite extreme of Catholicism because they teach that one can be saved by ?faith only? whereas Catholics teach that one can be saved by ?meritorious works? (i.e. Penance). (Please correct me if I am wrong)."

I am not sure if anyone answered your question, Kevin, but Catholics are saved by "faith and works" In other words, we must OBEY. It's not enough to say "I have faith." Like James says "Faith without works is dead," and "Ye are not saved by faith alone." (You are an odd sort of Protestant not to claim "faith alone" as your rule of faith. Shows you are a truth-seeker! Good for you!)

Your position on the doctrine of original sin goes against 2,000 years of history, the writings of the Church Fathers AND scripture. Sin entered the world through Adam and has touched every aspect of creation, every beast, every child. But I am not interested in arguing this point with you. Perhaps someone else can pick up that gauntlet.

Christ instituted an authoritarian Church, that Church grew, flourished, was persecuted, was chastised, had within its walls were and are sinners, yet she still stands like a rock!

There is no denonination that can claim apostolic succession. Not one! You mention some scandals in the Church's history as being indicative of its failure, but I offer you the reverse; She stands IN SPITE of her failures! Any other institution would have crumbled, and has, throughout history. Name me one other single institution that stands as a single unit, with single doctrine, and a single leader, older than the Catholic Church. She is a Nation, Kevin, that has "gone into all the world."

You mention the doctrinal chaos in Protestant churches as being the work of man. You are EXACTLY right!

Respectfully,

Gail

P.S. I appreciate your manners on this forum, Kevin. Though we don't agree, at least you are a gentleman.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 27, 2003.

Kevin:

"God is not responsible for all the religious bigotry and confusion throughout the world. Christ is not the cause of religious division. No, it isn't God nor is it the Bible. Instead man is the cause for this confusion."

A: AMEN!!!!! No truer words were ever spoken!!! We can even name many of those very men ... Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Henry III ... etc., etc., etc.

"Man is responsible for the division and bedlam in religion, not only in the First century, but today as well. Sadly, many people today don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and are too eager to believe anything that someone tells them they must do in order to be saved except read their own Bibles and find out for themselves what God requires of them.

A: Kevin, please note that all this "division and bedlam" you refer to began in the 16th century, precisely when people started following false manmade traditions instead of the teaching of God's Church, and especially when they started trying to figure out from their Bibles alone what God required of them!

"God had this to say about them, "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." (Rom 10:2). The same was true of the Jews as he said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hos 4:6). "

A: That is so correct. Knowledge = truth. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide HIS CHURCH to all truth. Therefore when you detach yourself from HIS Church, you inevitably fall into false "knowledge" and untruth. Denominationalism is the living proof of this.

Only by abiding in God's word will we remain God's disciples. Jesus said in John 8:31-32, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

A: OK, let's be honest. Can thousands of conflicting manmade sects represent TRUTH?? Can all of their contradictory doctrines constitute "abiding in God's Word"??

"Let's put this to the test, denominations teach that in order to be saved, one can "Pray for Salvation" and this is NOT in accordance with the word of God since nowhere is anyone commanded to do this in order to be saved, hence this is false doctrine. Since this is the case, those who are in denominations DO NOT HAVE GOD."

A: "Well now, isn't that interesting! You not only denounce the original Christian Church, but also all of the manmade denominations that have separated themselves from it. All except one that is - the denomination you belong to - apparently a denomination of one. A denomination is defined by its specific set of beliefs. If you don't align yourself with the belief set of any pre-existing denomination, you are simply a new denomination, one more fracture in manmade religion, and therefore, by YOUR definition, without God. People can pray for anything they need. Salvation is the most central need og human beings. People should most certainly pray for it, just as Paul did.

"John had this to say about these people, John 8:47 says, "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

A: Again, let's be honest. Can thousands of conflicting manmade sects all be "hearing God"? Does God contradict Himself??

"Denominations go to the opposite extreme of Catholicism because they teach that one can be saved by ?faith only? whereas Catholics teach that one can be saved by ?meritorious works? (i.e. Penance). (Please correct me if I am wrong)"

A: Yes, you are wrong. The Catholic Church teaches what the Apostles taught,and what the Bible teaches - that salvation is a free gift of God which cannot be earned or merited, but which must be actively accepted, through faith and works generated by grace. You are right however about what most denominations teach.

"Denominations teach that baptism is NOT for the remission of sins (which is NOT true) and Catholicism teaches that baptism is FOR the remission of sins (which is correct) however, Catholics transgress the command of God when they say that babies can be baptized to wash away ?original sin? which is NOT the truth according to the word of God"

A: You mean according to your personal interpretation of the Word of God - so what good is that? Are you not aware that the Bible states it is not for personal interpretation? Are the destructive results of personal interpretation not sufficiently obvious in the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism?? The teaching of the Church is the Word of God. They are one and the same. The Bible states this clearly. Whatsoever the CHURCH binds on earth is bound in heaven. Where is any such claim made for a book??

"There are too many Catholic doctrines which are foreign to the NT teaching that space does not permit me to elaborate"

A: That would be difficult to explain, given that Catholic doctrine was the basis of the New Testament. It was written by leaders of the early Catholic Church, and was then compiled centuries later by additional leaders of the Catholic Church. So how couls it possibly contain anything that conmflicts with Catholic teaching?? The fact is, it cannot. Anyway, since you have no reliable way of knowing what the NT really teaches, and have already demonstrated that you don't know what the Catholic Church teaches, you would seem to be in a poor position to make crtitical comparisons of the two.

"To claim that one can be baptized (an infant) with NO faith in the gospel of Christ is NOT in accordance with NT teaching"

A: Again, it is not in accord with your personal interpretation of NT teaching,but again, what good is that? The Christian Church has baptized infants from the beginning. Deal with it. Whole families were frequently baptized together, as recorded several times in the Bible. Jesus commanded "do not hinder the little ones from coming to me". He said that baptism was necessary to enter the kingdom, and then said that the kingdom belongs to little children. Where in the Bible is there the slightest hint that baptism should be withheld from children? Nowhere. the fact that adult sinners need to repent before being baptized is irrelevant to the baptism of children. In fact, the reason adults must repent is to become like little children!

"Go back and re-read Hebrews 11:6. To claim that one can be baptized to have their sins washed away and then later come to faith in Jesus one has to be ignorant of Biblical teaching on this subject"

A: This has been the teaching of the Christian Church from day one. To deny this one has to be ignorant of the teaching Jesus gave to His Church, and the complete history of Christian doctrine. Deal with it. You cannot replace 2,000 year old Christian doctrine with modern traditions of men, and still claim to be Christian.

"The Holy Spirit does NOT infuse someone with faith, faith ONLY comes by hearing God's word"

A: That is correct - partially. Notice how many people hear God's word, yet do not respond in faith. So obviously there has to be more to it than just hearing. The Holy Spirit does not infuse a person directly with faith, at least not usually. What He does do is infuse a person with Himself! It is that indwelling of the Holy Spirit which allows a person to respond to the Word of God, and to grow in faith. Scripture tells us "No-one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit".

"The word of God knows nothing of a Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or Pentecostal etc. denomination."

A: That is correct. The Church of scripture had NO denominations, and that fact can be relied upon in identifying that same Church today. The Church of Jesus Christ must be a Church with NO denominations. It must be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, just as it was in apostolic times. And history shows that this ONE Church called itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the first century.

"The Catholic Church is the mother of division and is the cause of all of these man made churches, for ALL of them owe their existence to this Church"

A: That seems a bit odd, given that there was no division until people started LEAVING the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the mother of unity and of truth. Rejection of unity and truth resulted in denominations, including yours. They owe their existence to rebellion against the truth, and against the pillar and foundation of truth.

"The Catholic Church claims to have an unbroken line of popes back to the 1st century, but how many of those popes were excommunicated and called heretics etc? There were times where even their own people didn't know who the was the true pope or which one was the anti-pope"

A: No Pope has ever taught heresy. The Holy Spirit absolutely does not allow it. A member of a manmade organization with thousands of conflicting doctrines, like yourself, is really in no position to speak of heresy. The existence of false claimants to a position has no effect whatsoever on the genuine holder of that position. There was one Pope at any point in history, even if a hundred others claimed to be Pope at the same time. If I claim to be President, and get a few thousand people to believe me, does the country have two Presidents??

"There is ONE church, but it most certainly is NOT the Catholic Church nor is it any of these denominations that are in existence today."

A: That is simply ignorance of history. If you read a bit of Church History (real history - not something by Chick Puiblications) you cannot help realizing that the original Church cannot be other than the Holy Catholic Church. But if facts don't matter to you, then so be it. Do your own thing.

"The ONLY way to have unity, is to go back to the Bible and the Bible ONLY as our rule of faith and practice."

A: You cannot go BACK to a tradition of Bible ONLY, for such a tradition never existed until recent times. It is a modern creation of men, which no-one on earth ever heard of before the 16th century. Any going BACK in Christianity can take you to one place only - the Catholic Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Bravo, Paul ! The holy apostle your patron would be happy to call you his son in the faith.

I know our free-lance Christians wiggle and struggle and deny. But the message of faith is nevertheless expounded to them. These are the ones who one day will have no excuse for not knowing. As he is now, Kevin is doubting; but he KNOWS what the Church of the apostles teaches us.

Will he concede? Can't say for sure, I hope. I hope he's absorbed something.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Eugene,

You wrote, "Why did you bring in God to buffer your love of private interpretation? I didn't place any blame on Him at all."

I did NOT place the blame on God at all, please go back and re-read what I wrote. If I am guilty of placing blame on God for any reason, please cut and paste in your next reply. If the Church is the "sole interpreter" of the bible as you so state, then why do you even need a bible when someone else is responsible for what you are to believe? Please go back and re-read 2 Timothy 2:15. If the Church is the only entity that can interpret the word of God for us, then you ought to be able to show through scripture where this is the case.

You wrote, "He manages very well thank you, to sustain His Holy Son's Church; and to preserve the complete truth of his apostles; entrusted to her care."

The truth is written down for us in the NT. (John 17:17). The church is ONLY maintained if they abide in the doctrine of Christ. (2 John 9).

You wrote, "It is of YOUR sectarian communities, we're speaking. All claim the Bible is self-interpreting. All have reliance on sola scriptura, with no authoritative Church to protect them from mistaking men's notions for God's Word. They fall to pieces all believing the truth is their own faith. Just as the false prophets have. Bible Christians like Koresh and the Kool-Aid preacher Rev. Jim Jones. You and they are all in the same boat, and it isn't the Bark of Peter the Apostle."

Eugene, we have been over this ground already have we not. You claimed I didn't answer your question earlier about "Koresh, etc." but I did answer it, you just did not read what I wrote.

In reply to your earlier question, I said, "What does God say in 2 Tim 3:13???"

Since we will be judged by Jesus very words, and ALL of those words are written down for us in the NT, don?t you think it would behoove you to do what it says??? (John 12:48). If you do not believe this verse, take a look at Revelation 20:12.

Do you fear God Eugene??? God says in Isaiah 66:2, "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." We are told to work out our salvation with ?fear and trembling? and one CANNOT do that if someone else teaches them what to believe. God created with us all the capacity to choose right or wrong, otherwise we would be robots. All the Catholic Church wants to do is control everyone just as though they WERE ROBOTS in telling their subjects what they are to believe. Think about it!!! We will be judged by OUR OWN works, NOT by those of someone else. Wouldn?t it be terrible if on judgment day Jesus said to you, "'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matt 7:23). Jesus gave us a sure fire method of making sure we do not hear those words, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. (Matt 7:21)."

You wrote, "You have no STANDARD, Kevin. Only what strikes your fancy as you pore the scriptures. No Holy Spirit. I am surely not implying you are an evil man, like those two imposters. Yet, they interpreted scripture under the very same premise you do. That it is not necessary for a Universal Church; a Catholic fount of truth, to bother them with her standard interpretation. An interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

Your claiming that the Holy Spirit guides in interpretation of scripture is no different than the Calvinists who claim that without a Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit, no one can understand God's word. Of course, once again you provide no scriptural evidence to prove this false claim.

You wrote, "Kevin, you haven't a leg to stand on. This is the usual Bible thumper's tripe."

On the contrary, I have provided scriptural evidence to back up what I say and all you do is come back and state words such as "Kevin you haven't a leg to stand on."

You wrote, "First of all; the Catholic Church upholds all, completely everything in the Holy Bible. YOU deny many key articles of the true faith that are plainly taught in the Bible!. The Church is the source in our world of the Bible, which God entrusted to her. You wouldn't have any Bible except for the Catholic Church."

It is the word of God which produced the church (Luke 8:11, 15; 1 Peter 1:21-25). The word of God was in circulation before the Catholic Church placed them into one volume. So your claim "You wouldn't have any Bible except for the Catholic Church" is false.

You wrote, "She has the first and the only inerrant interpretation of the Word. No opponent of the Church can claim to know better than she what the Bible says. Secondly, and once more ! If the Bible alone brings us into unity, why are you just one out of 20,000 separate sects, none of which give each other any respect, far as what they read in their own Bibles? They'll disagree down the line with what you think is in the Bible. Is that ''unity'' --from the Bible? You must be blind if you think ''The ONLY way to have unity, is to go back to the Bible and the Bible ONLY as our rule of faith and practice.'' The proof of just the reverse is right in front of your eyes! Nothing can bring unity back to your diverse faiths. Particularly the Bible alone!"

The Bible says in Eph 4:4-6, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

I say again, religious unity is possible ONLY when we ALL use the same standard, that is, the Word of God. When a man's creed (or catechism) contains less than the Bible, it contains too little. When a man's creed (or catechism) contains more than the Bible, it contains too much. When a man's creed (or catechism) contains only the Bible, it is not necessary, for the Bible ALONE is sufficient to meet man's needs. Paul wrote, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

God says in Rom 8:13-14, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." How is one led by the Spirit of God? Is it through some supernatural means or is it from the word of God??? We are born again "THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD" (See 1 Pet 1:23). The apostle John stated that there were 2 requirements to be born again, WATER and SPIRIT in John 3:5. The water in this passage is the waters of baptism and spirit in this passage is the word of God. That is why Paul was able to say in Romans 10:17 that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God". This is also why Paul was able to tell the Ephesians in Eph 5:26, "that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word," Once again in this passage the church is cleansed by the WASHING OF WATER (baptism) and the WORD (which is the word of God). This is NOT hard to understand for those who are really seeking the truth. Once again, Satan knows that the word of God produces faith, that is why he is trying so hard to steal it from men's hearts. (See Luke 8:12).

Gail,

Thank you for your kind words, it seems that they are few and far between in this forum for those of us who differ in our beliefs.

First, let me set the record straight, I am NOT a protestant. A protestant is someone who "PROTESTS" the Catholic Church. The Lord's church is NOT a denomination nor does it have any resemblance to the Catholic Church because it has NO earthly headquarters either visible (Pope) or invisible. Yes, we are saved by works, but NOT by works of merit, we are saved by works of OBEDIENCE, for Hebrews 5:9 states Jesus is, "author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

My position on the doctrine of original sin may go against 2,00 years of history, and the so called writings of the Church Fathers, but it DOES NOT go against scripture. Please go back and re-read Ezekiel 18:20. The Jews in the OT did NOT believe this false doctrine of "original sin" and they still do NOT believe this today.

Yes, the church was indeed persecuted but please ponder this point. The Catholic Church is guilty of condemning thousands upon thousands of their so called heretics to death in other words they turned them over to the authorities and they were either burned or hanged etc. This is exactly what the apostle John stated in Revelation 20:17. Please tell me how a church that is supposed to "love your neighbor as yourself" can do all of these horrible crimes against God and their fellow man??? To claim the Catholic Church is the true church is just NOT the truth according to the word of God. The Catholic Church was the first departure from the faith the apostle Paul warned of in Acts 20:29-30.

Catholic claim of apostolic succession is not only FALSE, but does not really matter since the seed of the kingdom is preserved in the word of God. (See Luke 8:11).

Is God the author of confusion? (1 Corinthians 14:33). There is ONLY 1 faith, not many as proclaimed in these different churches. (Ephesians 4:5). Consider the various doctrines taught by the many religious groups that exist today. Many teach it is not possible for a person to fall from grace and lose his salvation. But the Bible teaches it IS POSSIBLE for a person to fall from grace and LOSE their salvation (Hebrews 3:12-14; 10:26-28; 1 Corinthians 9:23-27; Galatians 5:4; 2 Peter 2:20-22; 3:17). How can all of these conflicting doctrines be taught? God is NOT the author of confusion!!! By what authority are these different churches teaching conflicting doctrines? The ONLY correct standard of authority is God's word, the Bible. The Bible, being inspired by God, completely furnishes us unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Because God's word is our ONLY authority in matters of religion, it must NOT be added to, subtracted from, or altered in any way. "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19). Because God's word is our ONLY authority in matters of religion, we will all one day be JUDGED BY THE WORD. (John 12:48, Rev 20:11-12).

Please also notice in the latest replies from Paul and Eugene how NOT ONE verse of scripture is quoted to refute what I said in my earlier post. This reminds me of 1 John 4:5 which states, "They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 27, 2003.

Paul,

You wrote, "Kevin, please note that all this "division and bedlam" you refer to began in the 16th century, precisely when people started following false manmade traditions instead of the teaching of God's Church, and especially when they started trying to figure out from their Bibles alone what God required of them!"

No Paul that is NOT correct. The apostle Paul said that after his departure which was back in the 1st century, savage wolves would come in not sparing the flock. (Acts 20:29-30).

You wrote, "That is so correct. Knowledge = truth. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide HIS CHURCH to all truth. Therefore when you detach yourself from HIS Church, you inevitably fall into false "knowledge" and untruth. Denominationalism is the living proof of this."

The Holy Spirit ALREADY guided the apostles into ALL truth. (John 16:13). The apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1-4). Paul says that he shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The book of Jude says that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Thus, the revelation of the will of Christ was completed before all of the apostles died. It was duly confirmed and is absolutely infallible. God's word is truth (John 17:17). Though the Catholic Bible says of itself that it is perfect and complete, Catholic doctrine says that it is incomplete and fragmentary.

You wrote, "Well now, isn't that interesting! You not only denounce the original Christian Church, but also all of the manmade denominations that have separated themselves from it. All except one that is - the denomination you belong to - apparently a denomination of one. A denomination is defined by its specific set of beliefs. If you don't align yourself with the belief set of any pre-existing denomination, you are simply a new denomination, one more fracture in manmade religion, and therefore, by YOUR definition, without God. People can pray for anything they need. Salvation is the most central need og human beings. People should most certainly pray for it, just as Paul did."

No, I denounce Churches made by men and NOT by God. Jesus said He would build His church, not a denomination and most certainly NOT one as corrupt as the Catholic Church. Belief of and obedience to the Word of God is the difference between the church of Christ and the denominational world. Since the church for which Christ died (Acts 20:28) is NOT a denomination, and since God adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47), and since all the saved are in the church, which is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:21-23), it is correct to say in the, "We are Christians only, and the only Christians."

This claim is neither bigoted nor prejudicial. It is, on the other hand, respectful of truth (John 8:32). To imply that we are not the only Christians is to imply that there are Christians in all churches. To believe this, one would have to believe that one church is as good as another; and to believe this, one would have to deny that the Lord has only one church. The ONLY Christians are those who have OBEYED THE GOSPEL of Christ (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and "Christians only" means that we are not a part of the denominational world with its names, creeds, and doctrines.

You wrote, "You mean according to your personal interpretation of the Word of God - so what good is that? Are you not aware that the Bible states it is not for personal interpretation? Are the destructive results of personal interpretation not sufficiently obvious in the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism?? The teaching of the Church is the Word of God. They are one and the same. The Bible states this clearly. Whatsoever the CHURCH binds on earth is bound in heaven. Where is any such claim made for a book??"

The Bible nowhere implies that one is dependent on religious leaders for interpretation; instead, it COMMANDS the individual Christian to test every teacher by the written Word (1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; 1 Thes. 5:21).

Yes, the apostles (ALL OF THEM and NOT Peter only) were given the keys to bind on earth what was already bound in heaven, (See Matthew 18:18) but that did NOT give them authority to legislate anything other than what God specifically directed them to speak and or write. Where is the authority to CONTINUE to bind and loose? There are NO more apostles and NO one could be a successor to an apostle because in order to be an apostle, one had to be a witness of Jesus resurrection. (See Acts 1:22).

You wrote, "That would be difficult to explain, given that Catholic doctrine was the basis of the New Testament. It was written by leaders of the early Catholic Church, and was then compiled centuries later by additional leaders of the Catholic Church. So how couls it possibly contain anything that conmflicts with Catholic teaching?? The fact is, it cannot. Anyway, since you have no reliable way of knowing what the NT really teaches, and have already demonstrated that you don't know what the Catholic Church teaches, you would seem to be in a poor position to make crtitical comparisons of the two."

That is also NOT correct. The word of God was the basis for the New Testament, NOT Catholic doctrine. It was written by inspired men and apostles who were under direction of the Holy Spirit. You have yet to prove the false assertion that I have "no reliable way of knowing what the NT really teaches" and I never claimed to be an expert on Catholic teaching and did even offer for you to correct me if I was in error.

You wrote, "Again, it is not in accord with your personal interpretation of NT teaching,but again, what good is that? The Christian Church has baptized infants from the beginning. Deal with it. Whole families were frequently baptized together, as recorded several times in the Bible. Jesus commanded "do not hinder the little ones from coming to me". He said that baptism was necessary to enter the kingdom, and then said that the kingdom belongs to little children. Where in the Bible is there the slightest hint that baptism should be withheld from children? Nowhere. the fact that adult sinners need to repent before being baptized is irrelevant to the baptism of children. In fact, the reason adults must repent is to become like little children!"

Once again Paul, you do err not knowing the truth. The Christian Church has NOT baptized infants from the beginning as you so state The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, and Jesus PLAINLY said in Mark 16:16, "He who BELIEVES and is baptized WILL be saved. Jesus did NOT say, "He who does NOT believe and is baptized will be saved." Baptizing infants is WITHOUT scriptural basis.

There are NO commands OR examples of infant baptism anywhere in the Word of God.

Since the prerequisites of faith AND repentance AND confession are BEYOND the infant's capability, they are NOT suitable candidates for baptism.

I wrote, "The Holy Spirit does NOT infuse someone with faith, faith ONLY comes by hearing God's word"

To which you replied, "That is correct - partially. Notice how many people hear God's word, yet do not respond in faith. So obviously there has to be more to it than just hearing. The Holy Spirit does not infuse a person directly with faith, at least not usually. What He does do is infuse a person with Himself! It is that indwelling of the Holy Spirit which allows a person to respond to the Word of God, and to grow in faith. Scripture tells us "No-one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit"."

God says it is CORRECT and not partially as you so state. The ONLY way someone can respond in faith is they first have to be taught the gospel and this includes every condition one is required to respond in faith with Confession of Jesus as Lord being one of them. How can an infant say that Jesus is Lord? Think about it!!! One CANNOT be baptized for the remission of their sins without first being taught. (Go back and re-read Mark 16:15-16).

You wrote, "That is correct. The Church of scripture had NO denominations, and that fact can be relied upon in identifying that same Church today. The Church of Jesus Christ must be a Church with NO denominations. It must be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, just as it was in apostolic times. And history shows that this ONE Church called itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the first century."

It is interesting to note there is NO mention of a Catholic Church in the pages of the NT. The church was called many names, but never Catholic.

You wrote, "That seems a bit odd, given that there was no division until people started LEAVING the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the mother of unity and of truth. Rejection of unity and truth resulted in denominations, including yours. They owe their existence to rebellion against the truth, and against the pillar and foundation of truth.

There was division even when the apostles were still alive. (See 1 Pet 2:1-3). There was division even at the church in Corinth and Paul condemned them for this very thing. (See 1 Cor 1:12-13). To claim that there was no division until people started LEAVING the Catholic Church is NOT the truth according to the word of God.

You wrote, "No Pope has ever taught heresy. The Holy Spirit absolutely does not allow it. A member of a manmade organization with thousands of conflicting doctrines, like yourself, is really in no position to speak of heresy. The existence of false claimants to a position has no effect whatsoever on the genuine holder of that position. There was one Pope at any point in history, even if a hundred others claimed to be Pope at the same time. If I claim to be President, and get a few thousand people to believe me, does the country have two Presidents??

You state "No Pope has ever taught heresy" so please tell me how one pope can state that he is "infallible when speaking ex-cathedra" when this ridiculous notion is NOT even hinted at in the pages of the NT??? How can one pope call someone a heretic and have them burned at the stake (Joan of Arc) and then another pope cancel that and make her a saint?

One more thing, to claim that the Catholic Church can never fall into apostasy is another false doctrine. Even in the first century, the Galatian church had fallen into Apostasy, otherwise why would Paul say that they had turned to a different gospel in Galatians 1:6- 7?

1 Tim 4:1-3 certainly speaks of the church slipping into apostasy, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

This is why God set up independent or autonomous churches of Christ. If everyone were the same as the Catholic Church, then if whoever was at the top started preaching false doctrine, then all churches would preach false doctrine.

In the NT if one church fell into Apostasy, then there were still other faithful congregations and the same holds true for the church today.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 27, 2003.

"This is why God set up independent or autonomous churches of Christ. If everyone were the same as the Catholic Church, then if whoever was at the top started preaching false doctrine, then all churches would preach false doctrine"

A: Right! Which is why Jesus took the trouble to guarantee that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth. This means that those at the top CANNOT start teaching false doctrine. More to the point, if all were members of the Catholic Church, as Christ intended, and He didn't lie when He said the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth, then all people would have access to the fullness of truth, just as He intended. But instead, various groups rebelled against His Church, setting up unauthorized autonomous churches of their own, conflicting not only with His Church but also with one another, thereby guaranteeing that they would NOT receive the fullness of truth which the Holy Spirit revealed to His own Church. And the evidence of this is just too obvious to miss.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Know something, Paul? For a while I had the false impression Kevin was truly able to distinguish truth from falsehood. To Kevin, all is truth when he discerns it in a verse out of the Bible! Falsehood is out of the question.

I realised he was caught in the webs of sola scriptura; a willing servant of error. But up to this day I hadn't seen how helpless these poor servants are. They have no intellectual freedom or curiosity. It's settled, once the Bible verse sinks in.

Truly, the devil has been allowed great leeway. We must appeal to God's infinite mercy for trapped souls like Kevin. We must call out to God for help against the demonic influence.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Know something, Paul? For a while I had the false impression Kevin was truly able to distinguish truth from falsehood. To Kevin, all is truth when he discerns it in a verse out of the Bible! Falsehood is out of the question.

I realised he was caught in the webs of sola scriptura; a willing servant of error. But up to this day I hadn't seen how helpless these poor servants are. They have no intellectual freedom or curiosity. It's settled, once the Bible verse sinks in.

Truly, the devil has been allowed great leeway. We must appeal to God's infinite mercy for trapped souls like Kevin. We must call out to God for help against the demonic influence.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Kevin, you said "The Jews in the OT did NOT believe this false doctrine of "original sin" and they still do NOT believe this today." The Jews in the Old Testament did not believe a lot of things. The Saducees did not even belief in life after death. They did not understand the redemption that was to come through Christ. Even Christ's own apostles did not understand until Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit began to teach them at pentecost. There are many important issues that are not addressed in scripture at all such as salvation for retarded folk.

Kevin, you said you feel they will be given an opportunity for salvation even though that is not addressed in scripture. Right you are to rely upon the gracious nature of our God revealed in scripture to support your thinking. Retarded folk are innocently ignorant of God as are people who have never had the benefit of the proclamation of the gospel.

Christ gave the keys (symbolic of power) to Peter. He gave the shepherd's mantle to Peter. He gave us a Church in which to bring our grievances. That Church is not a denomination, it is the universal Church; the Catholic Church. We are commanded in scripture to attend Church -- it's not an option, it's a command.

I know you said it doesn't matter what the Church Fathers believed. I cannot understand why any Christian would not want to read the writings of their ancestors. It is like reading the diaries of your great-great-great-great grandparents in the faith! That is what you are protesting, though, Kevin, the faith of your ancestors.

Here is a quote from Augustine against the Donatists who were an heretical group attempting to hijack positions of leadership within the Church:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298

Cheers,

Gail

P.S. I have a two part question for you:

1) Since the written word of God is the tool in which all are to know Christ (according to you), and the doctrines of our salvation are found only in them, does that mean that all illiterate folk are doomed?

2) Since there was no printing press until the middle ages, how was one to come to know Him?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 28, 2003.

Paul wrote, "Right! Which is why Jesus took the trouble to guarantee that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth. This means that those at the top CANNOT start teaching false doctrine."

That is NOT correct. The Bible tells us that we cannot be content to fellowship something that is not permitted. Paul wrote in Eph. 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." It will do my soul no good to ignore error. I cannot be pleasing to God and not be part of his church. I do not have hope in Christ if I remain within that which Christ has not authorized. 1 Thess. 5:21 says, "Test all things; hold fast what is good." God demands that you and I use his book (the Bible) to test ALL things. We must use the scriptures to examine what is taught and what is practiced in worship. If we find that what is taught and what is done is not authorized in the Bible, then we are to reject that church. It CANNOT be the church of the New Testament if it is not engaging in what the New Testament authorizes.

John wrote in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

But with what are we to test the spirits. The writer of Hebrews gives the answer. "For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," (Hebrews 4:12). We must look to God?s word as the source of truth in our quest to "test the spirits". It is the ONLY standard of truth by which we can measure anything that is taught religiously.

Scriptural baptism is preceded by faith, repentance and confession. Infant baptism is preceded by neither. To practice baptism before faith, repentance and confession is to pervert the gospel. Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

Since God said in 1 John 4:2-3, "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."

Since Catholics claim that one can be baptized as an infant who is WITHOUT FAITH in the gospel of Christ, then they are NOT confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh and are therefore "a deceiver and an ANTICHRIST." (2 John 4:7).

Paul wrote, "More to the point, if all were members of the Catholic Church, as Christ intended, and He didn't lie when He said the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth, then all people would have access to the fullness of truth, just as He intended. But instead, various groups rebelled against His Church, setting up unauthorized autonomous churches of their own, conflicting not only with His Church but also with one another, thereby guaranteeing that they would NOT receive the fullness of truth which the Holy Spirit revealed to His own Church. And the evidence of this is just too obvious to miss."

I already answered this question for you in my last post, I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you overlooked it the first time: The Holy Spirit ALREADY guided the apostles into ALL truth. (John 16:13). The apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1-4). Paul says that he shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The book of Jude says that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Thus, the revelation of the will of Christ was completed before all of the apostles died. It was duly confirmed and is absolutely infallible. God's word is truth (John 17:17). Though the Catholic Bible says of itself that it is perfect and complete, Catholic doctrine says that it is incomplete and fragmentary.

True Christians are NEVER afraid to embrace the truth. We are admonished to, "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith." (2 Corinthians 13:5).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 28, 2003.

Gail,

You wrote, "The Jews in the Old Testament did not believe a lot of things. The Saducees did not even belief in life after death. They did not understand the redemption that was to come through Christ. Even Christ's own apostles did not understand until Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit began to teach them at pentecost. There are many important issues that are not addressed in scripture at all such as salvation for retarded folk."

Yes, the Jews did not understand a lot of things however, that is NO excuse for their ignorance. The prophet Hosea said "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". (Hosea 4:6). The Jews were guilty of crucifying our Lord Jesus Christ because of their ignorance, but did that make them not guilty because they did not know??? Paul said he knew they did it in ignorance (Acts 3:17), but unless they repented, they would perish. (Acts 3:19). Yes, we do not have everything addressed in scripture as to what will happen to those who are retarded, however, we do have what is written to tell us what someone must do in order to be saved. We can only teach what is written that the gospel must be obeyed or else. (2 Thes 1:8). We cannot judge what we have no knowledge of and God chose not to reveal certain things to us. In those cases, we are not to judge because we cannot say for certain what God will do in those situations.

You wrote, "Kevin, you said you feel they will be given an opportunity for salvation even though that is not addressed in scripture. Right you are to rely upon the gracious nature of our God revealed in scripture to support your thinking. Retarded folk are innocently ignorant of God as are people who have never had the benefit of the proclamation of the gospel."

Gail, there is a difference between retarded people who do not have the capacity to learn and those who have never had the benefit of hearing the gospel. Please go back and re-read Acts chapter 17 and Romans chapter 1 verses 17-32.

You wrote, "Christ gave the keys (symbolic of power) to Peter. He gave the shepherd's mantle to Peter. He gave us a Church in which to bring our grievances. That Church is not a denomination, it is the universal Church; the Catholic Church. We are commanded in scripture to attend Church -- it's not an option, it's a command."

No Gail, Christ not only gave the keys to Peter, He also gave those same keys to ALL of the apostles. This is one point where the Cathoic Church does err not knowing the scriptures. (See Matt 18:18). Yes, I agree, we are commanded to attend church but NOT the Catholic Church. (Heb 10:25).

I am not going to comment on you quote from the Church Fathers for it does not matter what they say, it ONLY matters what God says.

You wrote, "Since the written word of God is the tool in which all are to know Christ (according to you), and the doctrines of our salvation are found only in them, does that mean that all illiterate folk are doomed?"

2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Remember, we will be judged on what we know. (See Luke 12:47-48).

You wrote, "Since there was no printing press until the middle ages, how was one to come to know Him?"

It is obvious that parts of NT scripture were available when the apostles were alive for Peter said in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

The apostle Paul proclaimed in Col 1:5-6, Col 1:23 that the gospel was preached in ALL THE WORLD. In Matthew 24:14 Jesus said, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled this prophecy. (See Matthew 24:34).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 28, 2003.

Jmj

[Skoobouy] "Well, this thread is a fine piece of work; behold, the bloated corpse of a once young and beautiful thread. Kevin had to come and troll it to death, mutate it beyond recognition, leaving randir and Ian with scraps off of a table of gluttony."

[Eugene] "For a while I had the false impression Kevin was truly able to distinguish truth from falsehood. To Kevin, all is truth when he discerns it in a verse out of the Bible! Falsehood is out of the question. I realised he was caught in the webs of sola scriptura; a willing servant of error. But up to this day I hadn't seen how helpless these poor servants are. They have no intellectual freedom or curiosity."

Guys, the reason for the destruction of this thread and the hours wasted in trying to reason with "Kevin" is the fact that I -- for about the 50th time in 3.5 years -- was ignored when I called for the banning of an evildoer.

Here is the way it has happened, time and again ...

(1) I discern (by a person's second or third post) that he/she is going to be BIG trouble for the forum -- an anti-Catholic bigot (or schismo/dissenting/heretical ex-Catholic) who is not open to learn, but is here to proselytize only ... OR ...
I recognize a "new" anti-Catholic as a former trouble-maker who has returned (after months, even years) for a second attempt at trashing our Church.

(2) I speak up, calling for the trouble-maker to be banned (with messages purged) -- for the first time, or re-banned (if banned under a "previous jurisdiction") -- so that our time is not wasted further.

(3) I am ignored.

(4) Time goes by, during which the trouble-maker goes bananas, trashing the forum left and right and causing good people to waste hours replying to him/her.

(5) Eventually, almost everyone (and occasionally EVERYone) realizes that the evildoer must be banned. But by then, nobody remembers that I spoke up on "day 1" or "day 2." So the next time a trouble-maker shows up and I call for HIS banning, I am ignored again, instead of being given credit for good discernment.

I have reached the point of total frustration in this area. I have reached the point where I rarely, if ever, take part in these pointless debates with evildoers. Meanwhile, I suffer the pain of witnessing you good Catholics ramming your heads against the wall with perfectly good arguments and evidence that are ignored by the anti-Catholics. Why hasn't anyone learned yet? Is anyone going to learn from this plaintive cry of mine?

In the present case, it was perhaps a week ago, on Kevin's first day back (after a year away), that I asked him if he was the same anti-Catholic "church of Christ" member who had so badly trashed the forum a year ago that he got himself banned. He refused to reply to me with a "yes" or "no." What does that tell you? Was he re-banned immediately? No. Has he been banned after another week of trouble-making? No. Is anyone else calling for him to be banned? No. [The same goes for Alex J. Ruiz and for the five "schismatic stooges."]

In my opinion, something is seriously wrong here. That's all I have to say. I wonder if anyone has the courage to agree with me publicly. If everyone disagrees with me, then please call for ME to be banned, because then it would be clear that I don't belong here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

John,

Once again, you make a false claim. You said, "In the present case, it was perhaps a week ago, on Kevin's first day back (after a year away), that I asked him if he was the same anti-Catholic "church of Christ" member who had so badly trashed the forum a year ago that he got himself banned. He refused to reply to me with a "yes" or "no." What does that tell you? Was he re-banned immediately? No. Has he been banned after another week of trouble-making? No. Is anyone else calling for him to be banned? No."

This is what I wrote on another thread which you never bothered to answer, "You claim that (Kevin, Gale, etc.) was booted out of here before, that is NOT the case as it appears that he/she left voluntarily. If he was "one of the most horrible human beings ever to disgrace this forum" then it is up to you to prove this is in fact true. Where is your proof???"

No reply was ever received on this post.

Instead of "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." (2 Cor 10:5). John is content with banning people instead of teaching them the truth, he needs to go back and re-read 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

You did NOT call for me to be banned in the Shroud of Turin thread, you merely stated, "Please depart again, unless you are willing to change your ways."

Please get your facts straight.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 28, 2003.

Thanks John. I think I'll take your advice! I did not know he had been here before. Perhaps you could start a thread listing those known offenders. Then everytime one comes back to the forum, just post a note to the thread thereby popping it back up to the top for quick perusal. It would take someone like you who has been around here for a long time, and has the discernment skills. I am just now starting to develop those skills. I am TOTALLY not used to be persecuted by Christians -- what an eye opener this has been. I had no idea that Catholics undergo such torment at the hands of Protestants! WOW!

I don't have time to waste.

Cheerio and so long,

Gail

P.S. So long Kevin, and just FYI you did not score ONE point, not even ONE! I have been around scripture twisters all my life. Every one of you has a different twist, a different angle, a different argument. But you have accomplished one thing; I am EVEN more the glad to be OUT OF PROTESTANTISM. (No offense)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 28, 2003.

Jmj

I deeply appreciate your vote of confidence, Gail. You don't know how much it means to me!

I wish that it would help the forum for me to make a thread entitled, "The Greenspun Catholic Forum's Hall of Shame," listing all who have been banned (or, in my opinion, should have been banned). However, there are two problems with this idea:
(1) Many Catholics (including moderators) are so kind-hearted and forgiving that they want to give even banned anti-Catholics a second chance. They would not be happy with my list. [I am against a second chance for anyone who does not repent and ask for readmission.]
(2) As has already happened on several occasions (including "Kevin"), trouble-makers return under new aliases, and it's not always easy to identify them. Publishing a "Hall of Shame" would make name-changing automatic for everyone whom I would list.

Clearly there are some major disadvantages to sharing a completely public forum. The one advantage is that it allows sincere inquirers to post very simply, very quickly, and in total anonymity, without having to register. (Lots of people value their privacy.)

God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Dear John:
Your frustration is very understandable. Imagine my own; fielding half or more of Kevin's howlers here, and it's as if he were just getting his second wind.

I thought about seconding your motion to ban his supercilious and bibliolatrous malarkey. Because, it's apparent he isn't debating in good faith.

But after all is said and done, I think of the truth; how it emerges before all our impartial observers, if we're patient. We serve the truth of Catholic doctrine.

As Gail truly reports, Kevin is being shown for the fundie primitive he is. The bright light of Catholic truth has exposed him for a failure in biblical matters. Gail has given her honest judgment. Kevin's not a worthy follower of Jesus Christ; since his knowledge is pedestrian at best, and his faith is just bibliolatry. And Gail ought to know; she's been where Kevin now is. Her opinion is worth GOLD.

Banning him right away would have been counter-productive. Allowing Kevin to go home feeling vindicated, as if the Catholic Church had nothing on him. It would only have bolstered his opinion of the errors he believes. Now that won't happen. Let's just hope many silent observers reaped some benefit from our patient effort, and let us thank the Holy Spirit for protecting us.

If Kevin keeps coming back, I'll have patience once more. He will never harm anyone in this place.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

I had no idea of the kind of prejudice catholics have on protestants. More like hatred. Is that the way to do it? Just ban the people that speak the truth? Yes it will be easy coming back, even if they do try and block your isp address, there are ways around that.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 28, 2003.

Block a soft-ball like you, D.O.--??? You are a home run waiting to happen. (Don't block this guy, Moderator!) Lol!!!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

No, you don't have to block me, just keep deleting my posts like you always do.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 28, 2003.

Poor little guy!
If we delete poor David, how is he going to learn the truth? --His blessed ancestors are all Catholic; they're in heaven, praying for D.O. to accept the truth from the Catholic Church!!! It's not fair!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

May Jehovah-God bless you Euge, and may he open your eyes and soften your heart - God Bless All

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 28, 2003.

Holy Lord in heaven forgive me, an unworthy servant, for making fun of a lost soul. David is good; he believes in You. I have no call to belittle him, only to help him. If I sin by making him angry, I ask Your forgiveness, I'll stop. I'll even ask David to forgive me.

Forgive me, David. (Read Romans, 1 :8)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Help Me? I come in Jesus' name to help you, and the many lost that come here. One day Euge, if it's not too late, you'll understand. My God bless this forum and open people's eyes to show them their errors.

-- D.O. (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 28, 2003.

David,

Perhaps you should start by showing the thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree with you their errors. Then, once you have all those thousands of conflicting denominations straightened out, and Protestants have unity of belief as Catholics do, then you can present a united Protestant front and jointly point out the errors of Catholicism. Until then, you simply have no credibility.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 28, 2003.

First of all, there is not 30,000 denominations, so stop using Barrett's numbers unless you want to use his 200 Roman Catholics denominations. A normal bible believing church is good place to start. Tell me, is believing in Baptism in the Holy spirit, the rapture pre-trib, salvation by faith alone, the eucharist being symbolic sending anyone to hell? Is praying to Jesus or God alone bad? Is not obeying the pope(a fallible man) bad? A normal bible believing church is right for someone but people should test what they teach. I assume when you say 'protestant' you mean anyone that's not with the RCC. Of course you can't find truth in a Jewish/Islam/Buddhist/Hindui/Mormon/Jehovah Witness (all 'protestants') because they are false religions. Wait an see, One day we'll find out who's right. Bible believing christians differ on the little things, like infant baptism etc.. All that matters is having faith in Jesus Christ, and (as Paul puts it) finish the race. Practicing Idolatry will lead you to a different path(hell).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 28, 2003.

David,
Think a little. Why would God bring you into this forum, and let you keep eating humble pie; never making sense, just blabbing? He sent you here to take away your anti-Catholic hatred. To teach you all His truth through the Holy Church of His Son!

Your blessed ancestors the Ortiz's from whom you're descended, all had God's salvation in the Church. You don't have all the graces they had as Catholics. That's why God brought you in here. He's going to change you from a dull soul into a shining, holy soul! Like your ancestors of the Ortiz family and mine, the Chavez family. Followers of Jesus Christ in His Catholic Church. --You will STILL love the Holy Bible; no one here is against that! God will do it!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

"First of all, there is not 30,000 denominations, so stop using Barrett's numbers unless you want to use his 200 Roman Catholics denominations."

A: I didn't use any specific number. I simply said "thousands". There are certainly "thousands" of Protestant sects, whether you accept Barrett's tabulation or not. Besides, even if there were only two, that would be sufficient to indicate a lack of reliable doctrine.

"A normal bible believing church is good place to start. Tell me, is believing in Baptism in the Holy spirit, the rapture pre-trib, salvation by faith alone, the eucharist being symbolic sending anyone to hell?"

A: There is only one Bible-believing Church. The others are all Bible- interpreting churches, which guarantees that what they believe is not bilical truth, but only their own unauthoritative guesses about the meaning of scripture.

"Is praying to Jesus or God alone bad?"

A: God is the recipient of all prayer, whether such prayer is offered directly or through intercessors.

"Is not obeying the pope (a fallible man) bad?"

A: Do the math. One Church which follows the Pope - 2,000 years of unity and pure truth, no denominations. Church tradition which rejects the Pope - 450 years of ongoing disintegration, doctrinal chaos, and untruth. That sounds bad to me. Very bad, since it is the exact opposite of what Jesus described for His Church.

"A normal bible believing church is right for someone but people should test what they teach."

A: Protestants have no means of testing any scriptural interpretation, for they have no objective standard of truth. The ONLY valid test of a scriptural interpretation is whether or not it conforms to the teaching of the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of truth. Since Protestants have rejected this objective standard, the only thing they can test their scriptural guesses against is other scriptural guesses. Not too difficult to see where all these denominations have come from.

"I assume when you say 'protestant' you mean anyone that's not with the RCC."

A: Why would you assume that? "Protestant" is clearly defined. Protestant groups are groups who profess to follow Jesus Christ (which eliminates all the religious traditions you listed), but who have rejected the means Jesus Christ gave us for actually following Him.

"Wait an see, One day we'll find out who's right"

A: With all due respect, someday YOU will find out who's right.

"Bible believing christians differ on the little things, like infant baptism etc.."

A: Bible believing Christians don't differ in beliefs at all, for the Bible cannot contradict itself. However, Bible interpreting Christians differ on every single doctrinal issue, great and small. That's how destructive sola scriptura and personal interpretation are.

"Practicing Idolatry will lead you to a different path(hell)"

A: How ironic that the first thing you have said right is irrelevant to this discussion.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 28, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Gene. You wrote:
"Banning [Kevin] right away would have been counter-productive."

After watching this kind of nonsense, over and over again, for more than three years, I have no doubt that you are mistaken. It is allowing these jerks to remain more than a day or two that is "counter-productive." It "counters" the "productivity" of Catholics here, who need to spend their free time on valuable matters, and who don't need to waste their free time smashing their heads against unhearing, uneducable "stone walls" named Kevin, David Ortiz, Alex Ruiz, Emerald, etc..

You continued, "Allowing Kevin to go home feeling vindicated, as if the Catholic Church had nothing on him. It would only have bolstered his opinion of the errors he believes."

After all these years, Gene, you still haven't realized how very wrong you are. You need to understand the primitive thought-processes of these pea-brains. They feel more and more brave with each day they are allowed to stay, and they feel invincible when they are not banned at all. But ... if you ban them right away -- after two days of clearly showing that they are rule-breakers -- then they learn the lesson to stay away from the forum because we consider their comments to be worthless and they can't get away with anything.

As "moderator's rules" state, this forum does not exist for ANY Catholic-bashing messages to be posted and refuted -- NOT EVEN ONE! The forum exists for other purposes. I have no respect for an opinion that the forum exists for (1) anti-Catholics to post rubbish, followed by (2) refutations of that rubbish.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.

Yep, John, you're right! Mr. Ortiz includes everyone in the scope of Christianity EXCEPT the Catholic Church! Wow, what discernment! He excludes all the bishops who canonized the scripture he holds so dear. He excludes Augustine, Clement, Polycarp, Jerome, Thomas e Kempis, Thomas Aquinas, Iraneus, ATHANASIUS, Mother Theresa and ALL of the early martyrs!

Don't waste your time, Eugene. He's just going to cause your blood pressure to escalate, and for what? So he can go home tonight and put a few more notches in his Bible.

There are plenty of Protestants out there who reflect the grace and mercy of Christ, who sincerely want to know what Catholics believe without casting stones, calling names and intentionally misrepresenting the teachings of the Church.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 29, 2003.

With due respect for the sincere opinions you've repeatedly put forth John; and in the full realisation that we aren't capable of converting a single soul; I never said we would.

God can convert a soul / You're excluding Him. He beings some adamant souls here, not just to confound us but to find the truth! They haven't found it within their own closed commmunities. They haven't seen it always in the pages of scripture. They WILL NOT venture into society to ask a Catholic to explain. But rather to excoriate his faith. I've met them in public.

Here, however, no matter how recalcitrant, they are given exegesis and rebuttals. --Not encouragement!

John; you think it just encourages them in opposition.

Why? Because for now, no convert has come back here to thank us??? --Friend, we don't serve here to get thanked by grateful converts. We labor in the fields of Our Lord. He will povide the harvest. We are only laborers, servants!

Will you please begin to see these obstinate non-believing Bible Christians as God must surely see them???? Lost sheep of Our Good Shepherd? Not as just your antagonists, hateful enemies??? Fight for their immortal souls!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2003.

Jmj

Gene, please reread my previous post. Nowhere did I refer to "converting," "converts," and other related concepts. But, for some strange reason, your entire response to me implies that I brought up that subject. You refer to "converting" (and the like three or four times), but I never hinted that such was a concern of mine.

You wrote: "God can convert a soul / You're excluding Him. He brings some adamant souls here, not just to confound us but to find the truth!"

Aside from the fact that God canNOT "convert a soul" (since he allows free will), I am also not "excluding Him." I didn't speak of God's role, one way or the other, in my post. I agree with you that God leads non-Catholics here "to find the truth." But the point you continue to miss -- my point and the point in the moderator's rules -- is that the non-Catholics must "find the truth" in a certain way, not just in any way they wish. They can silently "find the truth" in the archives, or they can "find the truth" via the asking of respectful questions (or posting respectful objections). But they CANNOT "find the truth" by being abusive or by proselytizing indefinitely -- two things that you are almost always willing to tolerate.

They must "find the truth" a certain way. This is what I will never cease to try to get you to admit -- because it is the civilized way, not the way of near anarchy. I am demanding that everyone follow the forum's rules, Gene! If you disagree with the rules ... if you want indefinite anti-Catholicism and proselytism (so that you can debate interminably with the same people) -- then please write to the moderator by e-mail to persuade him to change the rules. But don't just promote the violation of the rules by continuing to chat with these people. Do you see what I mean? I am in the right here! You are in the wrong! This is not even a matter of opinion. Rules exist. They are to be obeyed, else we commit sins of disobedience.

You wrote: "Will you please begin to see these obstinate non-believing Bible Christians as God must surely see them???? Lost sheep of Our Good Shepherd? Not as just your antagonists, hateful enemies??? Fight for their immortal souls!"

I am "fight[ing] for their immortal souls" in the right way, by requiring them to obey the rules or to leave. They (and maybe you?) need discipline, not license (unrestricted freedom). I am their best friend, not a "hateful enemy," when I (and the rules) demand good things from them.
But you are "fight[ing] for their immortal souls" in the wrong way -- namely, by letting them get away with murder ... and by hurting me and others in the process, because we have to read the trash that you, in effect, encourage them to continue posting. Their bad actions elicit much anger from me -- anger that I should not have to experience, because the trouble-makers ought quickly to be prohibited from posting words that elicit it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.

You're so passionate. The rules can't serve everybody if they only serve Catholics who turn away dialogue. Gail only agreed it was a waste of time giving Kevin the truth. He can't see it.

But, if YOU see truth, it should be the only reward you need. To speak truth. Not for us to shut the door on controversy and stifle the truth.

But my due respect and everything; I will not conform to a so called ''rule''. It isn't the most important rule, I think. And you don't learn anything from following every rule. It's our calling to serve God with all our hearts.

I'm beginning to resent your hints about my disagreement with you, John. Not for the first time, either. You say I tolerate the bashers for personal enjoyment, and to sit here playing some chess game. As if my only aim were self- aggrandizement, not for the benefit of lost souls. Is this how shallow you think I have been? Why can't you help my cause? Is it below you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2003.

AND, John, Dear Friend:

Stop telling me about your anger. Why is your anger all you ever think about? Hang your anger, John. Get some humility.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2003.

Ian you said: " ... he [the honest indian] does all this and then gets to heaven because he honestly in good faith thought it was alright."

I think the position is that it is possible for him to get to Heaven, not that it is a certainty. The point is that we do not set limits on God's sovereignty or the reach of His grace.

"No salvation except through the Church" is not violated because:

1. if saved, he is only saved by and through Christ, the Head of the Church, and
2. if saved, he is a member of the Church triumphant in Heaven.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 30, 2003.

Romans 2:14-16 provides support for "invincible ignorance".

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them

on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 30, 2003.

Stephen,

Romans 2:14-16 does NOT provide support for "invincible ignorance". Please go back and re-read verse 13 which states, "(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;"

Please answer how someone can be a "doer of the law" without knowing anything of the law? Please also answer how their thoughts can either "accuse or excuse them" if they have no knowledge of the law?

Please also look at verse 16 where the apostle Paul states "in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Notice the words "according to my gospel" in this passage and compare this with 2 Timothy 1:10 which states, "but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,".

Before Jesus came into the world to offer salvation, the Gentiles were "without God" and "without hope". (Ephesians 2:11-12). The same applies to those who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity.

Ephesians 2:13 gives us the remedy, "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Please also continue reading verses 14-22.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Gail,

You wrote, "So long Kevin, and just FYI you did not score ONE point, not even ONE!"

My replies have never been to "score ONE point"!! Not even to score "TWO or THREE or MORE points". Catholic doctrine may state that ignorance is an excuse for someone to go to heaven however, that is NOT what the bible teaches on this subject.

You wrote, "I have been around scripture twisters all my life. Every one of you has a different twist, a different angle, a different argument."

My challenge to you is PROVE IT!!! If I am "twisting scripture" as you so state, then please do show me where I did err in my interpretation. It is easy to make an accusation, but much harder to prove it now isn't it Gail?

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

You erred in your interpretation by coming up with ideas that flatly contradict the BIBLICAL pillar and foundation of truth. You erred by rejecting the BIBLICAL words of Christ to the leaders of His Church - not to you or to me - "He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me". You erred by ignoring the BIBLICAL revelation that whatsoever the Church - not you or me - binds on earth is acceptable in heaven, and therefore is objectively true and reliable. You erred in your arrogant assumption that the Holy Spirit reveals truth to YOU directly, through the same method which has brought about the fragmentation of Protestantism, instead of acknowledging the BIBLICAL teaching that the Holy Spirit guides the CHURCH - not you or me - to ALL TRUTH. I realize these passages are not on the Protestant list of acceptable scriptures; but they are still the Word of God, and stand in clear condemnation of both your personal guesses regarding the meaning of scripture, and the manmade tradition which encourages you to pursure such an invalid, simplistic, unauthorized, untenable, unbiblical approach to Christian doctrine.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

Kevin:
Who cares about your challenges? Gail spoke the truth. Nothing you say at all is even close to true. Even when you quote a valid truth, your misapprehension is clearly apparent.

If you reply: ''You must PROVE that;'' and I cannot, the truth is Known nevertheless. God knows it and all who have no prejudice can discern it.

It's intellectually dishonest of you to dispute when Gail speaks candidly. She is being honest; and even begs your pardon for it; ''no offense''. Hers is true Good Will!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2003.

Once again, Paul does NOT correct me, instead he states "You erred in your interpretation by coming up with ideas that flatly contradict the BIBLICAL pillar and foundation of truth."

Unfortunately Paul, your so called "BIBLICAL pillar and foundation of truth" which you claim is the Catholic Church flatly CONTRADICTS the written word of God.

These words in Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears Me: he who rejects you rejects Me". were NOT spoken of the Church, Jesus was speaking of those who heard the APOSTLES words. 1 John 4:6 says, "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." The apostle John said that "we" – the inspired men who recorded the very thoughts of the Holy Spirit – "are of God". Those who "know God" are those who demonstrate through their words and deeds that they are receiving their information from the ONLY source of divine truth, the Bible.

The binding and loosing was ONLY given to the apostles, not to anyone else otherwise you would be able to prove this from scripture.

The Holy Spirit does NOT reveal any more truth to anyone directly or in-directly. Everything that is required for the man of God has already been provided through the written word. (2 Tim 3:16-17).

In order to be APPROVED of God, we are COMMANDED to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) and NOT have someone TELL US what we are to believe.

Eugene,

You wrote, "Nothing you say at all is even close to true. Even when you quote a valid truth, your misapprehension is clearly apparent."

If this is the case, then you ought to be able to correct my misapprehension" since it is so "clearly apparent", but this you fail to accomplish.

You wrote, "It's intellectually dishonest of you to dispute when Gail speaks candidly. She is being honest; and even begs your pardon for it; ''no offense''. Hers is true Good Will!"

Let’s see if this is a true statement.

Gail wrote: "But you have accomplished one thing; I am EVEN more the glad to be OUT OF PROTESTANTISM. (No offense)"

This is what she meant (No offense) to, that she was OUT OF PROTESTANTISM, so there was NO dishonesty implied in my remarks to her at all. In fact, I did not even address her last statement. Please read what is written Eugene before you make another false accusation.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

There was no false accusation, Kevin. It was a statement of fact. You continue to misconstrue the words of scripture. With one aim at all times, to make them fit your convenience. Intellectually and spiritually bereft. Poor Bible thumper.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2003.

Eugene wrote, "You continue to misconstrue the words of scripture. With one aim at all times, to make them fit your convenience."

Now Eugene claims that he can read my mind???

Eugene wrote, "Intellectually and spiritually bereft. Poor Bible thumper."

This reminds me of Luke 6:22 which states, "Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

"Unfortunately Paul, your so called "BIBLICAL pillar and foundation of truth" which you claim is the Catholic Church flatly CONTRADICTS the written word of God"

A: So, let's see ... that which the Bible, which IS the Word of God, identifies as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) is in conflict with the same Word of God which identifies it?? Well, it's either that or your personal interpretations conflict with the Word of God. Now really - which sounds more likely??

"These words in Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears Me: he who rejects you rejects Me". were NOT spoken of the Church, Jesus was speaking of those who heard the APOSTLES words"

A: No He wasn't - read it! "hears ME" means "hears ME". It doesn't mean "hears the apostles". Furthermore, He was speaking TO the apostles at the time. He was telling them that when they as ordained clergy of the Church taught the people, the people in listening to them were really listening to the one who gave them the truth - Jesus.

"Those who "know God" are those who demonstrate through their words and deeds that they are receiving their information from the ONLY source of divine truth, the Bible"

A: Seems to me that if God wanted the Bible to be the only source of divine truth, that fact would be mentioned in the Bible. It isn't. Also, if the Bible is the only source of truth, that means the Church of God had no truth at all for the first 350 years, since the Bible had not yet been defined and compiled by the CHURCH. It would also mean that most Christians had no truth for the next 1,200 years, since there were no Bibles available to the common people until the printing press was invented in the 16th century. For all those years, Christians learned the fullness of truth from just one source - the teaching of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, without which the truth simply crumbles.

"The binding and loosing was ONLY given to the apostles, not to anyone else otherwise you would be able to prove this from scripture"

A: There is NOTHING that was given ONLY to the Apostles. Jesus founded a CHURCH, not an apostles' club. The Apostles had no status whatsoever except as members and leaders of the Church. EVERYTHING Christ gave to the Church through the Apostles was meant to endure as long as the Church endures - and that means until the end of time itself.

"The Holy Spirit does NOT reveal any more truth to anyone directly or in-directly"

A: Then obviously, anything you come up with today which was not held by the Church for the past 2,000 years CANNOT be of the Holy Spirit! Right?

"In order to be APPROVED of God, we are COMMANDED to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) and NOT have someone TELL US what we are to believe"

A: Please note the word "RIGHTLY" in this passage. Obviously the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism is incompatible with the word "rightly". Any RIGHT interpretation of the Word of God would have to result in unity and truth, not fragmentation and untruth. The fruit of your tradition has been the exact opposite of everything Jesus described for His Church. Doesn't that tell you anything??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

Paul wrote, "So, let's see ... that which the Bible, which IS the Word of God, identifies as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) is in conflict with the same Word of God which identifies it?? Well, it's either that or your personal interpretations conflict with the Word of God. Now really - which sounds more likely??"

Can you read God's word and not see how PLAINLY the Catholic doctrine that one can "go to heaven without knowing anything about christianity" CONTRADICTS the written word of God? It is PLAIN enough to see if you want to see it, however, Jesus spoke to the Jews in parables for He said in Matt 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." The apostle Paul told the Ephesians that they could understand for he wrote in Eph 5:17, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is." The scriptures I quoted are NOT written in parables and they are NOT hard to understand.

I wrote, "These words in Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears Me: he who rejects you rejects Me". were NOT spoken of the Church, Jesus was speaking of those who heard the APOSTLES words"

To which you replied, "No He wasn't - read it! "hears ME" means "hears ME". It doesn't mean "hears the apostles". Furthermore, He was speaking TO the apostles at the time. He was telling them that when they as ordained clergy of the Church taught the people, the people in listening to them were really listening to the one who gave them the truth - Jesus."

My reply, Does Luke 10:16 state that "He who hears you hears Me" Yes or No? Yes, Jesus was speaking of "hearing the apostles" as it PLAINLY states this as a fact. 1 John 4:6 confirms this as a test to know the "spirit of truth" and the "spirit of error". We have ALL of the words that Jesus required and the APOSTLES and inspired men that the Holy Spirit directed to write down for us in the New Testament. This is why we have the written "testament" for the apostles confirmed the mystery among the Gentiles that was hidden from the ages and that is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27).

You wrote, "Seems to me that if God wanted the Bible to be the only source of divine truth, that fact would be mentioned in the Bible. It isn't. Also, if the Bible is the only source of truth, that means the Church of God had no truth at all for the first 350 years, since the Bible had not yet been defined and compiled by the CHURCH. It would also mean that most Christians had no truth for the next 1,200 years, since there were no Bibles available to the common people until the printing press was invented in the 16th century. For all those years, Christians learned the fullness of truth from just one source - the teaching of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, without which the truth simply crumbles."

The Holy Spirit guided the apostles into ALL truth. (John 16:13, Acts 2:1-4). The apostle Paul says that he declared the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The book of Jude says that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). The revelation of the will of Christ was completed BEFORE all of the apostles died. Since the written word claims in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that we are thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK, nothing else is needed or required.

It is obvious that parts of NT scripture were available when the apostles were alive for Peter said in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." The apostle Paul proclaimed in Col 1:5-6, Col 1:23 that the gospel was preached in ALL THE WORLD. In Matthew 24:14 Jesus said, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled this prophecy. (See Matthew 24:34).

I made a statement, "The binding and loosing was ONLY given to the apostles, not to anyone else otherwise you would be able to prove this from scripture"

To which you replied, "There is NOTHING that was given ONLY to the Apostles. Jesus founded a CHURCH, not an apostles' club. The Apostles had no status whatsoever except as members and leaders of the Church. EVERYTHING Christ gave to the Church through the Apostles was meant to endure as long as the Church endures - and that means until the end of time itself."

You didn’t answer the question. I asked you to prove from scripture that binding and loosing would continue to be handed down and you conveniently dodged the question. I did not mention anything about a "CHURCH", I asked you where is the authority to continue to "bind and loose"? Well???

I wrote, "The Holy Spirit does NOT reveal any more truth to anyone directly or in-directly"

You replied, "Then obviously, anything you come up with today which was not held by the Church for the past 2,000 years CANNOT be of the Holy Spirit! Right?"

My reply, We are ONLY led by the Holy Spirit THROUGH the word of God. Anyone who claims to be "of God” is led by the Holy Spirit. This is not some direct indwelling of the Spirit as some people claim, if so they ought to be able to prove it!!! God said in Romans 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." God also said in verse 13, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Now how does one put to death the deeds of the body??? Is it from a "Direct Operation of the Spirit"? No, it is through the word of God. Go back and re-read 1 Peter 1:23.

You wrote, "Please note the word "RIGHTLY" in this passage. Obviously the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism is incompatible with the word "rightly". Any RIGHT interpretation of the Word of God would have to result in unity and truth, not fragmentation and untruth. The fruit of your tradition has been the exact opposite of everything Jesus described for His Church. Doesn't that tell you anything??"

That is the one TRUE statement in your reply, "Obviously the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism is incompatible with the word "rightly". What is it that causes all of this "doctrinal chaos"? Is it the word of God, or the CREEDS or CATECHISMS of MEN? It most certainly is NOT the word of God. The subject of the New Birth (John 3:5) has been discussed over and over in almost every pulpit in the world, and yet the majority of people still "sit in darkness" (Luke 1:79; cf. 1 John 2:9-11) because the majority of them do NOT preach and teach OBEDIENCE to the gospel of Christ, which is the ONLY power to salvation. (Romans 1:16). Without OBEDIENCE to the gospel of Christ, NO MAN or WOMAN that has lived since the day of Pentecost in AD 33 will live eternally in heaven. (2 Thes 1:7-9). Remember, we will be JUDGED by what is WRITTEN. (Revelation 20:12).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Hey Kevin,

I meant no offense to YOU since you are a Protestant. Plus I have many Protestant friends who I love dearly. When I say I am ever so glad to be free of Protestantism, I am speaking of the dissension, arguments, divisions, etc., strife, which are at the very heart of Protest-antism, but I am still happy to fellowship with those who love Jesus.

You said "Prove it" in your above-mentioned thread, but the Bible warns us to stay away from argumentative, strifeful people. I think the gentlemen on this forum have proven their points to you so overwhelmingly that I could not possibly add one iota to the strength of their arguments -- so what's the point?

When I said "you did not score one point," I was simply putting a lid on it, ie., our arguments are wholly unpersuasive, and I am finished trying to PROVE to you anything. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings.

God Bless,

Gail

P.S. I think the subject of the meaning of "Protestant" came up earlier in this thread, where you claimed not to be a Protestant. FYI Webster defines Protestants as 1) originally any of the German princes and free cities that formally protested to the Diet of Spires, its decision to uphold the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation or 2) any Christian not belonging to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Eastern Church (in the 17th century the term was restricted to Lutherans and Anglicans).

So Kevin, unless you belong to the Catholic Church, or Orthodox, you are most certainly a Protestant -- according to Daniel Webster.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

Eugene wrote, "Intellectually and spiritually bereft. Poor Bible thumper."

This reminds me of Luke 6:22 which states, "Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake."

Eugene wasn't criticizing you "for the Son of Man's sake", but for mis-interpretting Christ's instructions (If I may be so bold as to answer for him). He wasn't criticizing you for BEING a Christian, but for being IN ERROR.

Also

Can you read God's word and not see how PLAINLY the Catholic doctrine that one can "go to heaven without knowing anything about christianity" CONTRADICTS the written word of God

So Kevin, all the people living in central China, etc. who have never heard of Christ are going to Hell? Please reconcile this with the image of a Merciful God. Would God create people without giving them the *opportunity* for Salvation?

My reply, Does Luke 10:16 state that "He who hears you hears Me" Yes or No? Yes, Jesus was speaking of "hearing the apostles"

When have you HEARD the Apostles? To use your logic Jesus never said "he who READS you hears me" so if you don't think the Apostles could pass down their authority in toto, you have no way of getting the Truth! You don't have an Apostle to give it to you.

You didn’t answer the question. I asked you to prove from scripture that binding and loosing would continue to be handed down and you conveniently dodged the question. I did not mention anything about a "CHURCH", I asked you where is the authority to continue to "bind and loose

You are using one of your errors to prove another error is true :-( . The 1st error is that there is only the Bible as a source of truth. If that WERE true, then you could say that if it wasn't in the Bible it wasn't true. However, we are told to pass down both Written and Oral Traditions. Therefore, this authority is found in the Church's Tradition, and I'm sure that someone can find you a few Bible quotes in support of this (which since you aren't going to accept them, you will discount).

That is the one TRUE statement in your reply, "Obviously the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism is incompatible with the word "rightly". What is it that causes all of this "doctrinal chaos"? Is it the word of God, or the CREEDS or CATECHISMS of MEN? It most certainly is NOT the word of God

Well, *you* have finally said something right, the individual interpretations of Protestants like yourself are wrong, and God's Traditions are correct. God's Traditions of course being Written Tradition (the Bible) and Oral Tradition (the teachings of the Church).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2003.

Kevin is proving John Gecik correct, he is definitely incorrigible and doesn't deserve to continue posting. The Bible which he professes to base his faith on has no effect on his reason, he has bent every verse to suit his own imagination.

I'm glad you've answered for me, Frank. In fact, I withheld my reply to this man until all the others had a fair chance to give their rebuttals. You have, and Kevin is disarmed completely. It makes me very sad for him. The thing about Kevin most lamentable is how he can even twist the words of Jesus Christ Our Saviour. If Kevin were to contradict MY words, or yours, or John's, we could give him a pass. After all, we're sinners. We have no ''rights'' over him.

But Kevin calls Christ a liar, virtually. Christ said, ''I am with you all days, even to the end of the world,''-- to His Church, Kevin will contradict Jesus. He'll insist these men were the ONLY ones who were given the power to bind on earth; and not their successors. The Church to Kevin then would not exist at all after the final apostle died. How then would Jesus be with them to the end of the world? Jesus said this, but Kevin doesn't believe it. He doesn't believe many plain words of Jesus Christ. Jesus speaks to Kevin for nothing. Jesus gave him the scriptures through His Holy Church. Kevin believes in the power of the Bible and denies the power of the saints who wrote and collected the books of the Bible. He has no faith in Christ's own words. What a sad spectacle you are, Kev. John Gecik is right. You ought to get straight out of here. You have given us the example of why some men are ex-communicated. (Because they beg for it!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2003.

Gail,

I never took offense to anything you said in your earlier statements. Yes, the bible says to avoid "foolish and ignorant disputes" in Titus 3:9-11 however, the apostle Paul was speaking of the Jews who were "striving about the law". The reason I say "Prove it" is because we are admonished in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 to "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (See also 1 John 4:1). I didn't know this was a game where someone is supposed to score points, and I have yet to see someone prove God wrong in their replies to my posts. God clearly states that unless one obeys the gospel, they will be lost. I am still waiting to hear someone explain the real meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:8 since it was stated the meaning of this passage is only figurative.

I am a Christian, and a Christian ONLY, the New Testament knows nothing of a Protestant, or Catholic for that manner, so Daniel Webster's explanation is irrelevant.

Frank,

You wrote, "So Kevin, all the people living in central China, etc. who have never heard of Christ are going to Hell? Please reconcile this with the image of a Merciful God. Would God create people without giving them the *opportunity* for Salvation?"

Here is the same reply I gave earlier, Before Jesus came into the world to offer salvation, the Gentiles were "WITHOUT GOD" and "WITHOUT HOPE". (Ephesians 2:11-12). The same applies to those who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity. Ephesians 2:13 gives us the remedy, "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

Let me ask you a question, What would happen to the Gentiles who were "without God" and "without hope" if there had never been any gospel? They would still be LOST for the gospel was designed to SAVE a world already condemned (Rom 1:18; 2:12; 3:10-12, 23; 5:8). This is why the command was given to the disciples to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16).

You wrote, "When have you HEARD the Apostles? To use your logic Jesus never said "he who READS you hears me" so if you don't think the Apostles could pass down their authority in toto, you have no way of getting the Truth! You don't have an Apostle to give it to you."

Frank, that is NOT what I said, why do you have to twist words to try to make them say what God never intended to say? We have the apostles words WRITTEN down for us to READ in the NT. How does one get faith? Is it by hearing what the apostles have written down for us in the NT??? (See Romans 1:16). The apostle James tells us it is the IMPLANTED WORD (James 1:21) which comes through the WORD OF GOD (1 Peter 1:23) is able to SAVE OUR SOULS.

You wrote, "You are using one of your errors to prove another error is true :-( . The 1st error is that there is only the Bible as a source of truth. If that WERE true, then you could say that if it wasn't in the Bible it wasn't true. However, we are told to pass down both Written and Oral Traditions. Therefore, this authority is found in the Church's Tradition, and I'm sure that someone can find you a few Bible quotes in support of this (which since you aren't going to accept them, you will discount)."

No, that is true Frank. God says that His word is "TRUTH". (John 17:17). Oral Tradition CANNOT make that claim. There is NO proof that Oral Tradition would continue to be handed down.

Eugene,

I did NOT call God a liar, let God speak by what He meant when He said, ''I am with you all days, even to the end of the world,''

John 14:16-18 states, "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."

God also said in John 16:13, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."

The Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2:1-4) and He completed his mission of guiding the apostles into ALL truth. (2 Tim 3:16-17). The word of God was CONFIRMED through the apostles with the accompanying signs. (Mark 16:20).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Kevin, You said "I am a Christian, and a Christian ONLY, the New Testament knows nothing of a Protestant, or Catholic for that manner, so Daniel Webster's explanation is irrelevant"

I am afraid you lost me there. If we cannot use Webster's English dictionary to define our meaning of words, and we cannot use Webster as an authority of such, then what is the point of continuing this conversation?

You seem to think you can pour any meaning YOU WANT not only into any scripture but NOW even into any English word!!!

Why are you on this forum, Kevin, if not to score points, or win converts, just what the heck is your motive?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks for saying that I was right about Kevin, Gene, but that's not going to get you off the hook for your last reply to me!

I won't go into all the bad things about it, but maybe just a couple ...

"I'm beginning to resent your hints about my disagreement with you, John. Not for the first time, either. You say I tolerate the bashers for personal enjoyment, and to sit here playing some chess game. As if my only aim were self- aggrandizement, not for the benefit of lost souls. Is this how shallow you think I have been?"

If you could take the time to re-read my last post, you would see that what you have just described is a figment of your imagination. I didn't "hint" about anything at all. I didn't say anything about your motives for what you do ("personal enjoyment" ... "self-aggrandizement"). That is an invention of your mind ... or maybe and expression of guilt that you feel ... or perhaps a rekindling of a two-year old grudge you had suppressed. Whatever the reason for your error, any objective person can see, in my posts above, that I only criticized what you have been doing [encouraging the breaking of rules], not why you have been doing it.

"Stop telling me about your anger. Why is your anger all you ever think about? Hang your anger, John. Get some humility."

This really made me laugh, Gene. You really got out of control there, and you wrote before thinking.
First, I think that this was the first time I ever mentioned that these ne'er-do-wells have been making me angry lately. Yet you pretend that I have made a habit of complaining about being angry.
Second, you are the one who exhibited big-time anger in responding to me. How ironic!
Third, you are the one who needs "humility." I am the one who is "humble" enough to submit to the rules, while you are too prideful to obey them.

Let's can it. It's all pretty darned boring (like Kevin).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

Gail,

I did not say we could not use Webster's English dictionary to define our meaning of words, I stated that "the NEW TESTAMENT KNOWS NOTHING OF A PROTESTANT, OR CATHOLIC FOR THAT MATTER, so Daniel Webster's explanation is irrelevant"

I have come here to do as God has instructed in Romans 1:16 (See also 2 Corinthians 5:11) and as admonished in 2 Corinthians 10:5, "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God..."

The word of God is our weapon to cast down these arguments as stated in verse 4, "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,"

The "sword of the Spirit" is the word of God. (See Eph 6:17).

Let God speak again, "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12). See an example of this in action in Acts 2:37.

Have you not read 1 Corinthians 6:2 that the saints will JUDGE the world??? Please read Psalm 149:5-9 which states, "Let the saints be joyful in glory; Let them sing aloud on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a two-edged sword in their hand, To execute vengeance on the nations, And punishments on the peoples; To bind their kings with chains, And their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute on them the written judgment--This honor have all His saints."

We accomplish this by wielding the two-edged sword which is the WRITTEN word of God.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

Here is the same reply I gave earlier, Before Jesus came into the world to offer salvation, the Gentiles were "WITHOUT GOD" and "WITHOUT HOPE". (Ephesians 2:11-12). The same applies to those who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity. Ephesians 2:13 gives us the remedy, "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

I'm confused slim. Are you saying that someone who hasn't heard of Christ is going to be condemned, or that since Christ sacrificed Himself for us all can be saved?

You wrote, "When have you HEARD the Apostles? To use your logic Jesus never said "he who READS you hears me" so if you don't think the Apostles could pass down their authority in toto, you have no way of getting the Truth! You don't have an Apostle to give it to you."

Frank, that is NOT what I said, why do you have to twist words to try to make them say what God never intended to say? We have the apostles words WRITTEN down for us to READ in the NT.

Did the Apostles write these words themselves? How do you KNOW that what was transcribed was correct? How do you know that the Catholic Church put in all the right books into the New Testament, no more, no less? For a Catholic that's easy: We have Christ's word that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church. But for you, you don't believe that apostolic authority was passed down, why would you assume that the Bible contains what it is supposed to? If the men who actually wrote it didn't have divine assurance of being correct, why would you believe it?

Therefore, this authority is found in the Church's Tradition, and I'm sure that someone can find you a few Bible quotes in support of this (which since you aren't going to accept them, you will discount)."

No, that is true Frank. God says that His word is "TRUTH". (John 17:17). Oral Tradition CANNOT make that claim. There is NO proof that Oral Tradition would continue to be handed down.

Is 2 Thessalonians in your "Bible"?

14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[3] we passed on to you, whether by ***word of mouth*** or by letter.

Now what does that mean to YOU, Kevin? That THOSE listeners and those listeners ONLY were meant to have word of mouth traditions passed down, but EVERYONE is to have the "letter" of the Word passed down? Sheesh. You guys give me a headache.

I do see the bind this puts you in though. You CAN'T admit to Apostolic authority or that we are to have oral Tradition, because if you did you'd have to admit you don't have any, and are therefore wrong about everything. So obviously I expect it's easier for you to deny that oral Tradition and apostolic authority are real as then you can have Kevin's religion just the way you want it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2003.

Frank,

First, my name is Kevin, NOT slim. Second, Yes, someone who hasn't heard of Christ is going to be condemned. Go back and re-read 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

You wrote, "Did the Apostles write these words themselves? How do you KNOW that what was transcribed was correct? How do you know that the Catholic Church put in all the right books into the New Testament, no more, no less? For a Catholic that's easy: We have Christ's word that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church. But for you, you don't believe that apostolic authority was passed down, why would you assume that the Bible contains what it is supposed to? If the men who actually wrote it didn't have divine assurance of being correct, why would you believe it?"

Frank, it is something called FAITH. Go back and re-read the 11th Chapter of Hebrews. Romans 10:17 tells us how one gets that faith. What does Hebrews 11:6 state?

You wrote, "Therefore, this authority is found in the Church's Tradition, and I'm sure that someone can find you a few Bible quotes in support of this (which since you aren't going to accept them, you will discount)."

You will NOT find anything in the Bible which states that "authority is found in the Church's Tradition." If you can find it, please post it for all of us to see.

You wrote, "Is 2 Thessalonians in your "Bible"?"

Yes it is!

You continued, "14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[3] we passed on to you, whether by ***word of mouth*** or by letter. Now what does that mean to YOU, Kevin? That THOSE listeners and those listeners ONLY were meant to have word of mouth traditions passed down, but EVERYONE is to have the "letter" of the Word passed down? Sheesh. You guys give me a headache."

Please show me the Bible states this tradition will CONTINUE to be handed down? No headache on this side!!! :-) You cannot even pass down one sentence from one person in a classroom and have it come back exactly the same as it was when it was first spoken. Give me a break. Yes, oral tradition was handed down in the first century, but NOW we have the WRITTEN word of God, so that is NO LONGER NECESSARY. What did God say? Go back and re-read Hebrews 8:11-13. What did the apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 13:9-10?

You wrote, "I do see the bind this puts you in though. You CAN'T admit to Apostolic authority or that we are to have oral Tradition, because if you did you'd have to admit you don't have any, and are therefore wrong about everything. So obviously I expect it's easier for you to deny that oral Tradition and apostolic authority are real as then you can have Kevin's religion just the way you want it."

Oh, I admit to apostolic authority, for it is written down for us in the NT. I believe what the apostles have WRITTEN down for us, you choose to ADD to their word by claiming oral tradition is also the word of God. Will we be judged by oral tradition or by what is WRITTEN? (See John 12:48, Revelation 20:12). Think about it!!!

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Frank,

One more thing, did Jesus "bring LIFE and IMMORTALITY to light THROUGH THE GOSPEL"? (See 2 Timothy 1:10). Yes or No?

Another thing, what did the apostle Peter say??? Go back and re-read 1 Peter 4:17-18.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

First, my name is Kevin, NOT slim. Second, Yes, someone who hasn't heard of Christ is going to be condemned

Sure thing, chief. I'm glad I'm not in your sect. You are condemning an awful lot of people to Hell, why you think a loving God would do that is beyond me.

If the men who actually wrote it didn't have divine assurance of being correct, why would you believe it?"

Frank, it is something called FAITH. Go back and re-read the 11th Chapter of Hebrews. Romans 10:17 tells us how one gets that faith. What does Hebrews 11:6 state?

Again, the Apostles didn't write the NT themselves WHAT are you having faith in? WHO decided what books were to be in the Bible? What did they base their decision ON? There were several councils on it. Catholics with the Holy Spirit's guidance decided which books to include, but to YOU there is no continuing church so these men were NOT guided in any fashion right? That being the case, why would you believe their choices correct?

You will NOT find anything in the Bible which states that "authority is found in the Church's Tradition." If you can find it, please post it for all of us to see.

That's because when the Bible was written there was already a Church! No one would have asked such a question, as the answer was known. It's only now that people like you who are separated from the church try and justify that separation that this argument is made.

You continued, "14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[3] we passed on to you, whether by ***word of mouth*** or by letter. Now what does that mean to YOU, Kevin? That THOSE listeners and those listeners ONLY were meant to have word of mouth traditions passed down, but EVERYONE is to have the "letter" of the Word passed down? Sheesh. You guys give me a headache."

Please show me the Bible states this tradition will CONTINUE to be handed down? LOL, isn't that what I just said you'd say? (see below)

You cannot even pass down one sentence from one person in a classroom and have it come back exactly the same as it was when it was first spoken.

But even you admit that the Bible was written AFTER the apostles, right? If you don't believe Oral Tradition can be passed down faithfully, your Bible is Junk. If you DO believe Oral Tradition can be passed down faithfully, it would be foolish of you not to recognize the Bible as legitimate, and in so doing realize that everything that was passed down was not added to the Bible. Basically, if you can pass down things orally for 1, 10 or 100 years, you can do so for 2000.

Will we be judged by oral tradition or by what is WRITTEN? (See John 12:48, Revelation 20:12). Think about it!!!

Something for you to think about. It's the Church's Oral Tradition that teaches us how to interpret the Bible correctly. That's why I can put 10 Protestants in a room and come up with 10 different answers to nearly anything. Other than your personal pride, why do you assume YOUR answer to anything is correct? I know that the church's answer is correct because of their authority, you have no such guarantee of your own interpretations.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

In 2 Timothy, is this what you wanted me to see?

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus

I agree that Tradition is passed down orally, if you do too, why aren't you a Catholic?

Also, on your 1 Peter section, this is referring to people who DISOBEY God, not people who haven't HEARD THE WORD! Again, sheesh.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

Are you, or are you not, according to Daniel Webster, a Protestant, yes or no?

What church do you attend? And is your church infallible in its doctrine?

What is your purpose for coming here?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2003.

Oh Kevin, I do apologize, I see that you did answer my question. You came here on a lofty mission; to cast down arguments, correcting our doctrine, setting the record straight! YOU have the INFALLIBLE interpretation of scripture, and YOU (of course under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) have come to correct US! How humble of you!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2003.

Kevin,

You say "One more thing, did Jesus "bring LIFE and IMMORTALITY to light THROUGH THE GOSPEL"? (See 2 Timothy 1:10). Yes or No?"

A: the answer is YES - through the GOSPEL. Reread this carefully, and you will find it does NOT say "through your personal interpretation of the gospel". The only way anyone can be certain that what they are hearing is the true message of THE GOSPEL is by listening to the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church. How many conflicting denominations do we have to have before they are willing to admit the obvious - that truth cannot exist in a manmade tradition of private interpretation and doctrinal chaos.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

Kevin:

You said:

Romans 2:14-16 does NOT provide support for "invincible ignorance". Please go back and re-read verse 13 which states, "(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;"

Please answer how someone can be a "doer of the law" without knowing anything of the law? Please also answer how their thoughts can either "accuse or excuse them" if they have no knowledge of the law?

Good point, Kevin, though your opening conclusion is wrong. "Invincible ignorance" does not literally mean ignorance of everything, it means that the only source of knowledge is God's grace and the natural law written in the heart. The CCC says (Art. 847 as quoted by Paul above):

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. [emphasis added]

Note from the highlighted portions:

1. Ignorance is lack of knowledge of the gospel of Christ, not lack of knowledge of
   • the natural law, or
   • God's will.
2. Salvation for the righteous gentile is only possible, not certain. We cannot assert for sure that a gentile will be saved even if he is a perfect follower of the law. However, we equally cannot assert for sure that he will not be saved, and this is the "invincible ignorance" position.
3. The accusing/excusing thing is what we call "conscience".

In the rest of your post addressed to me, you mainly point out that Rom.2:16 says "according to the Gospel" and then argue that there is "no hope" without knowledge of Christ, citing Eph.2:11-22.

It is true that only Christ can save. This does not mean however that there is no salvation without the knowledge of Christ. The verses that you cite do not support this. The devil has knowledge of Christ, but he is not saved.(James 2:19) The Patriarchs had no hope, but they are saved.

Here by the way is Rom. 2:13-16 again, this time NRSV (my last post used the NAB). I want to show how closely it parallels the Catechism.

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.

They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them

on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

[emphasis added]

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 01, 2003.

Hi, Gail.

You asked "Kevin":
"Are you, or are you not, according to Daniel Webster, a Protestant, yes or no? What church do you attend? And is your church infallible in its doctrine?"

I am almost 100% sure that "Kevin" once admitted to being a member of the one of the group of protestant denominations that have names similar to "church of Christ" and "Churches of Christ" -- which I'll call "CoC" for short.
You may be aware of the fact that the original CoC was a "congregationalist" protestant denomination, founded by several 19th-century American guys who fell away from other protestant denominations (a couple of whom were named "Campbell"). They thought that the could "restore" the "original Bible church," though they obviously failed miserably. [Eventually, their "CoC" itself splintered into various denominations, one of which Kevin probably belongs to.]

The CoC is one of the most rabidly anti-Catholic denominations in the world. Its members are among the most brainwashed, most unreasonably tenacious holders of their false doctrines (in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary) this side of Islam. I know these things form personal experience with a CoC member who was a co-worker. My personal knowledge of the CoC, together with Kevin's year-ago acts of "terrorism" at our forum, is what led me to say, more than a week ago, that Kevin should not be given a platform from which to speak again.

The CoC does not claim to be "infallible in its doctrine." It even resists saying that it has "doctrine." It rejects all doctrinal formulations known as creeds!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Frank,

No, my name is NOT chief either, but you are close, I am a retired Senior Chief.

You wrote, "I'm glad I'm not in your sect. You are condemning an awful lot of people to Hell, why you think a loving God would do that is beyond me."

No Frank, I am NOT condemning anyone to Hell, it is God that does the condemning. It is NOT hard to understand what God has PLAINLY stated in His word. Your problem is you choose to believe men instead of God. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 PLAINLY states that those who "DO NOT KNOW GOD" and also INCLUDES "THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST" WILL suffer "EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD". There is NO figurative language in this passage.

You wrote, "Again, the Apostles didn't write the NT themselves WHAT are you having faith in? WHO decided what books were to be in the Bible? What did they base their decision ON? There were several councils on it. Catholics with the Holy Spirit's guidance decided which books to include, but to YOU there is no continuing church so these men were NOT guided in any fashion right? That being the case, why would you believe their choices correct?"

Yes Frank, the Apostles DID write the NT [THROUGH] inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is irrelevant who decided what books to be placed in the Bible because ALL of scripture was already available BEFORE they were placed into one book. I stand on what God reveals in Romans 16:25-27, "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith-- to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."

You wrote, "That's because when the Bible was written there was already a Church! No one would have asked such a question, as the answer was known. It's only now that people like you who are separated from the church try and justify that separation that this argument is made."

Once again, NO proof is offered that "authority is found in the Church's Tradition". Still no proof is offered that tradition will CONTINUE to be handed down.

You wrote, "But even you admit that the Bible was written AFTER the apostles, right? If you don't believe Oral Tradition can be passed down faithfully, your Bible is Junk."

Frank, please explain how Oral Tradition has anything to do with what has been WRITTEN? The Holy Spirit directed men to WRITE down EXACTLY what God told them to write, and Oral Tradition had NOTHING to do with the WRITING of the NT.

You wrote, "If you DO believe Oral Tradition can be passed down faithfully, it would be foolish of you not to recognize the Bible as legitimate, and in so doing realize that everything that was passed down was not added to the Bible. Basically, if you can pass down things orally for 1, 10 or 100 years, you can do so for 2000."

Have you not read what God wrote concerning this subject? In the OT it was the head of the family’s responsibility to pass down God’s instructions. In the NT, it is much different for God said in Hebrews 8:11, "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."

You wrote, "Something for you to think about. It's the Church's Oral Tradition that teaches us how to interpret the Bible correctly. That's why I can put 10 Protestants in a room and come up with 10 different answers to nearly anything. Other than your personal pride, why do you assume YOUR answer to anything is correct? I know that the church's answer is correct because of their authority, you have no such guarantee of your own interpretations."

No Frank, God does NOT demand that some outside source or agency (man or the Church) is required to interpret the Bible correctly. If so, then you ought to be able to provide book, chapter and verse where God says that an individual CANNOT interpret what they read. I do NOT assume anything, I KNOW my interpretation is CORRECT because it AGREES EXACTLY with the word of God teaches. God once again PLAINLY states that "God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God." (Ps 53:2). He also said in Eph 5:17, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."

The reason God gave gifts to men when the Holy Spirit came is spelled out in Eph 4:12 "for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, "

For this reason in verse 13, "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;"

Since we have the PEFECT written testament of God, (1 Cor 13:10), we CAN KNOW what the truth is because this PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY (James 2:12) [which is the NT] is what we will be judged by when Jesus returns. This is the reason we have the WRITTEN word of God for the apostle Paul said in Eph 4:14, "that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,"

You did not answer this question earlier, except to ask the same question others have asked me. I said, "Before Jesus came into the world to offer salvation, the Gentiles were "WITHOUT GOD" and "WITHOUT HOPE". (Ephesians 2:11-12). Is this a true statement Yes or No?

The apostle Paul specifically states that the Gentiles who were "WITHOUT HOPE" and "WITHOUT GOD", now have a chance to be saved because of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Ephesians 2:13). Paul specifically stated in Romans 8:9, "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, HE IS NOT HIS." [Emphasis mine] and there are NO exceptions.

Let me ask you another question, What would happen to the Gentiles who were "without God" and "without hope" if there had never been any gospel? Would they be saved or lost? Why did Jesus command the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

Yes, Peter asked the question, what would happen to those who have not heard the word, but listen to the apostle Paul give the answer to this very question in 2 Thes 1:8.

Paul, I am glad that you agree with what God wrote in 2 Tim 1:10 however, it also does NOT say "through the Church's interpretation of the gospel". This is what you want this passage to say, but it does NOT state this either now does it? You stated earlier in this thread concerning 2 Thes 1:8 that, "First, God does not literally take "vengeance" on anyone, because vengeance is an act of evil." After I corrected you on this error, you then retreated to the position of "The figurative content of this passage is plainly revealed by the wording." to which you NEVER bothered to expound on what this supposed figurative language represents.

Stephen,

You did NOT answer the question how someone who does not KNOW GOD can have their "THOUGHTS" accuse or excuse them in reference to WHAT? The passage in Romans 2:15 specifically states, "who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)". This is NOT ONLY the "Natural Law" as you assume, for if this were ONLY the "Natural Law", how could their thoughts accuse or excuse something to which they have nothing else to compare? I said this before, God once allowed the nations to walk in their own ways (See Acts 14:16), God once winked at this ignorance, but NOW COMMANDS ALL MEN TO REPENT. (See Acts 17:30). Go back and re-read the First part of Rom 2:12 which states, "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law" and compare this with Eph 2:11-12.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 01, 2003.

Dear Chief:
Your point about the Tradition of the apostles as uncertain or incapable of lasting to our day, is absurd if you are a Bible believer.

In a classroom, you couldn't pass down one sentence from one person & find it correct after it was sent back through the classmates. So much for Sacred Tradition? Well, this is a classroom 2,000 years larger. The Church of the apostles passed on her Tradition without falling into error by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by her members. It's YOUR sects in which no truth is capable of surviving. --Even Holy Baptism, to which the many separated Christian communities once paid lip service, is disappearing from some ''Bible-believing'' churches. Only one belief is popular and unchanged. The Bible; with the idolatry which you serve it. And, as you stated about the classroom defect, your Bible has no way of remaining inerrant. You've had no Holy Spirit leading you in truth. It shows in your pathetic attempts to discern the Word.

The Holy Spirit is still trying, though, Kevin. He leads you into our midst in His Divine Wisdom; expecting somehow to give you the truth. So far you've spurned His help, as you rejected our good will. The Holy Bible remains a locked vault to Bible thumpers like you. We keep handing you the true Keys, you keep throwing them back in our faces. Truly bereft and perverse in your ignorance! All we can do then is pray for you. With God nothing is impossible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.

Eugene,

I see that you are into name calling also. That is ok, I will not retaliate.

You wrote, "Your point about the Tradition of the apostles as uncertain or incapable of lasting to our day, is absurd if you are a Bible believer."

Not at all. There is NOT one mention that Tradition would continue to be handed down once the apostles died, NO NOT ONE. I am sure that you would provide those scripture references if they were in the NT, but you can search far and wide and you will NOT find this command.

You wrote, "Well, this is a classroom 2,000 years larger. The Church of the apostles passed on her Tradition without falling into error by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by her members."

We have the WRITTEN word which is able to make us wise unto salvation, and DO NOT need any so called Tradition which the Catholic Church claims was handed down. The Catholic Church has many Traditions which transgress the doctrine of Christ.

You wrote, "It's YOUR sects in which no truth is capable of surviving. --Even Holy Baptism, to which the many separated Christian communities once paid lip service, is disappearing from some ''Bible- believing'' churches."

Baptism is FOR the remission of sin. There is NO error in this doctrine for this is what the word of God teaches. Catholics honor God with their lips, but their hearts are FAR from Him.

You wrote, "Only one belief is popular and unchanged. The Bible; with the idolatry which you serve it. And, as you stated about the classroom defect, your Bible has no way of remaining inerrant. You've had no Holy Spirit leading you in truth. It shows in your pathetic attempts to discern the Word."

I am still waiting for you to correct my so called "pathetic attempts to discern the Word". You do a fine job of making assertions, but NEVER make an attempt to prove them except to throw out accusations that are not true.

It is unfortunate that you have been deceived and CANNOT even see the truth when it is PLAIN as day right in front of you.

Truly God spoke well of the Pope and the Catholic Church who make the claim that they are successors to the apostles for He said in 2 Cor 11:13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ."

This is no wonder because Satan does the exact same thing, in verse 14!!!

Verse 15 gives us the rest of the story, "Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 01, 2003.

O.K. Kevin,

No Frank, I am NOT condemning anyone to Hell, it is God that does the condemning

No, it's your mis-interpretation that does the condemning! To say God creates millions of people and condemns them to the Fire is offensive.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 PLAINLY states that those who "DO NOT KNOW GOD" and also INCLUDES "THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST" WILL suffer "EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD". There is NO figurative language in this passage.

The actual line is

. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.

The first part says "God is JUST." later it says you will be punished if you do not obey the Gospel of Jesus, but you *can't* obey it if you've never heard it! You're mistaken friend, God would not be just if He condemned people to Hell through no fault of their own. Just as one must have free will to make Salvation meaningful, one must have the choice to be damned. You are wrong. This does NOT say that everyone who hasn't heard the Gospel is damned, and why you need the Church to tell you the correct interpretation of Scripture.

It is irrelevant who decided what books to be placed in the Bible because ALL of scripture was already available BEFORE they were placed into one book

This is wrong too. There were MANY "holy" books in the early church, someone had to decide which were inspired, which weren't. You NEED the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make that decision! If you didn't, the books in the Bible would be just a popularity contest at the time. If you truly believe the Bible is inspired, you HAVE to admit that whoever put the inspired books together was inspired to do so.

Once again, NO proof is offered that "authority is found in the Church's Tradition". Still no proof is offered that tradition will CONTINUE to be handed down.

You can close your eyes, but the Truth doesn't go away, you just don't see it.

Frank, please explain how Oral Tradition has anything to do with what has been WRITTEN? The Holy Spirit directed men to WRITE down EXACTLY what God told them to write, and Oral Tradition had NOTHING to do with the WRITING of the NT.

Of course it did. Someone didn't follow Christ around with a notepad scribbling down what He did, this was recorded *later*. That's why it's important for you to believe in Oral Tradition; even the Bible was (briefly at least) Oral Tradition.

No Frank, God does NOT demand that some outside source or agency (man or the Church) is required to interpret the Bible correctly. If so, then you ought to be able to provide book, chapter and verse where God says that an individual CANNOT interpret what they read. I do NOT assume anything, I KNOW my interpretation is CORRECT because it AGREES EXACTLY with the word of God teaches.

How about Acts?

29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." 30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The point here is that we are like the Ethiopian, we need a guide who knows the truth to explain things to us. People have told you this already, and you probably won't listen now. That's why there are so many Protestant sects out there, everyone thinks THEY are right, and none of them agree with each other! You think YOU are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. No sane person would believe you over the continued, unchanging, teachings of the church.

Since we have the PEFECT written testament of God, (1 Cor 13:10), we CAN KNOW what the truth is because this PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY (James 2:12) [which is the NT] is what we will be judged by when Jesus returns.

We CAN know the truth, but this does NOT say we WILL know the truth from reading Scripture! (Reread that please) You could read scripture your whole life and still misunderstand it. That's why no one believes your side of things, you just have no authority to say that you are correct, and no way of knowing if you are, other than your own belief. I wouldn't want MY salvation to rest in the fact that YOU think you're right LOL!

You did not answer this question earlier, except to ask the same question others have asked me. I said, "Before Jesus came into the world to offer salvation, the Gentiles were "WITHOUT GOD" and "WITHOUT HOPE". (Ephesians 2:11-12). Is this a true statement Yes or No

I would say "yes and no". Yes in the sense that without God, none are saved, and no in the sense that Christ died for ALL of our sins. If Christ died for all our sins, How can you condemn what God has forgiven? I can NOT say they are in Heaven or Hell, only that I don't believe anyone can say these people are DEFINITELY in Hell. Big difference, bwana.

Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, HE IS NOT HIS

But what IS the spirit of Christ? You think you can define it and so render judgement, I'm saying that a caveman could have the "spirit of Christ", we just don't know. Again, it's not your call to make.

What would happen to the Gentiles who were "without God" and "without hope" if there had never been any gospel? Would they be saved or lost? Why did Jesus command the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

See the above for the first part. On the second, there can be many roads to get someplace, you're more likely to get to Christ following a clear, well marked straight road. Definitely a Christian has an advantage, if not why bother? But this does NOT say that everyone else is condemned.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 01, 2003.

Frank,

Yes, it is God that condemns, [Not my interpretation] and it is by the word in which we ALL will be judged. (John 12:48, Revelation 20:12).

You wrote, "The first part says "God is JUST." later it says you will be punished if you do not obey the Gospel of Jesus, but you *can't* obey it if you've never heard it! You're mistaken friend, God would not be just if He condemned people to Hell through no fault of their own. Just as one must have free will to make Salvation meaningful, one must have the choice to be damned. You are wrong. This does NOT say that everyone who hasn't heard the Gospel is damned, and why you need the Church to tell you the correct interpretation of Scripture."

Yes, God is just and He WILL judge the world in righteousness. Does God say that NOW is the day of salvation? (2 Cor 6:2). If there were ANOTHER day of salvation, God would have surely stated this is the case. In Acts 17:30 God COMMANDS ALL MEN TO REPENT. Does He say only those men who have heard His word? No, he does not.

You wrote, "This is wrong too. There were MANY "holy" books in the early church, someone had to decide which were inspired, which weren't. You NEED the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make that decision! If you didn't, the books in the Bible would be just a popularity contest at the time. If you truly believe the Bible is inspired, you HAVE to admit that whoever put the inspired books together was inspired to do so."

If I need the Holy Spirit to make the decision which books belong in the Bible, then I do not need the Bible, for the Church has already done all of the decision making for me. God does not think men are so ignorant that they cannot make logical and correct decisions based on what He wrote. Give me a break. To claim that one needs to have someone else explain what scripture means then God did a terrible job of explaining how one can be saved.

The truth is IN the word of God. Plain enough for anyone to see who is seeking the truth. For it is the WRITTEN word of God that produces faith. (Rom 10:17). The devil knows this is how one is converted. (See Luke 8:12).

Frank, please explain how Oral Tradition has anything to do with what has been WRITTEN? The Holy Spirit directed men to WRITE down EXACTLY what God told them to write, and Oral Tradition had NOTHING to do with the WRITING of the NT.

You wrote, "The point here is that we are like the Ethiopian, we need a guide who knows the truth to explain things to us. People have told you this already, and you probably won't listen now. That's why there are so many Protestant sects out there, everyone thinks THEY are right, and none of them agree with each other! You think YOU are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. No sane person would believe you over the continued, unchanging, teachings of the church."

No why did Philip have to explain to the Ethiopian about Jesus? Obviously the Ethiopian Eunuch did NOT have NT scripture, that is why Philip had to preach Jesus to him. Now we have the written word that tells us of Jesus that is sufficient to produce faith. This does NOT support your false notion that an interpreter is required for someone to become obedient to the faith.

You wrote, "We CAN know the truth, but this does NOT say we WILL know the truth from reading Scripture! (Reread that please) You could read scripture your whole life and still misunderstand it. That's why no one believes your side of things, you just have no authority to say that you are correct, and no way of knowing if you are, other than your own belief. I wouldn't want MY salvation to rest in the fact that YOU think you're right LOL!"

Really, We CANNOT know truth from scripture? Yes it is possible to mis-understand scripture, but those who are truly seeking the Lord and are willing to UNDERSTAND ALL that He requires for them to be saved, he/she will NOT hesitate to OBEY THE GOSPEL. I wouldn't want to rest my salvation in someone else who could be wrong. I am responsible for my own salvation. Go back and re-read Phil 2:12. No man or church will ever take that responsibility. If the Catholic Church is teaching false doctrine [and it is], then EVERYONE who is in this Church will be lost. Think about it.

I wrote, "You did not answer this question earlier, except to ask the same question others have asked me. I said, "Before Jesus came into the world to offer salvation, the Gentiles were "WITHOUT GOD" and "WITHOUT HOPE". (Ephesians 2:11-12). Is this a true statement Yes or No?"

To which you replied, "I would say "yes and no". Yes in the sense that without God, none are saved, and no in the sense that Christ died for ALL of our sins. If Christ died for all our sins, How can you condemn what God has forgiven? I can NOT say they are in Heaven or Hell, only that I don't believe anyone can say these people are DEFINITELY in Hell. Big difference, bwana."

Wow Frank, God says that before Jesus came the Gentiles were WITHOUT HOPE. God ONLY forgives sin [listen to this], THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. To claim that one can be saved without coming to Him [He is the door, John 10:7], Jesus said the same was a "thief and a robber". (John 10:1).

You wrote, "But what IS the spirit of Christ? You think you can define it and so render judgement, I'm saying that a caveman could have the "spirit of Christ", we just don't know. Again, it's not your call to make."

Really we do not know what is the spirit of Christ? The apostle Paul said in Acts 2:38-39, Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." The Holy Spirit is given to one when they have obeyed the gospel. Those who are afar off in verse 39 are the Gentiles. Obviously you do not believe God's words since you falsely claim, "a caveman could have the "spirit of Christ", we just don't know."

You wrote, "See the above for the first part. On the second, there can be many roads to get someplace, you're more likely to get to Christ following a clear, well marked straight road. Definitely a Christian has an advantage, if not why bother? But this does NOT say that everyone else is condemned."

No, there is ONLY one road that leads to life, and there are FEW who find it. (Matt 7:14).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 01, 2003.

Well Kevin,

I don't think there's much to say anymore, you are even contradicting yourself now. Good luck to you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 01, 2003.

Yes; thanks, Kevin. It was interesting to at least know why you read the Bible. If that's enough for you, may God be with you. C-- Ya!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.

Dear Moderator,
If you are interested, this is Kevin's day to say Good-by. Please read him his rights. Thanks!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.

If the moderator chooses to ban me, that is his perogative.

The TRUTH of what God has said on this subject has been presented and you have rejected it.

There is only ONE way to get to heaven, and that is THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, for there is NO other name under heaven by which men can be saved. (Acts 4:12). To claim that one can be saved even though they have never heard of the gospel or of Jesus or Christianity clearly CONTRADICTS what God said in Ephesians 2:11-22, Acts 17:30, Romans 1:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and other many other verses in the NT.

God said that strait is the gate and difficult is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Strait means a NARROW RESTRICTED passage. God has ALWAYS required OBEDIENCE to His commands and in the NT one MUST OBEY THE GOSPEL, or they WILL suffer God's wrath.

You can continue to call me all types of names but I will not respond except to say that God DOES NOT LIE, and He WILL exact vengeance on those who do not know Him just as He PLAINLY stated in His word.

Jesus said in Rom 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." This verse PLAINLY states that in order to escape condemnation, one must be "IN CHRIST".

To claim that one can sin [for we ALL sin] without any knowledge of Christ and then be saved without OBEDIENCE to the gospel of Christ, they surely HAVE NOT READ the NT.

Jesus PLAINLY stated that REPENTANCE and REMISSION OF SINS would be preached beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47), and that is EXACTLY what happened when Peter preached the first gospel sermon. (Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul said, "For since, in the wisdom of God, THE WORLD THROUGH WISDOM DID NOT KNOW GOD, it pleased God THROUGH THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE MESSAGE PREACHED TO SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE." (1 Cor 1:21).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 02, 2003.

Dear Kev,
Yes, the truth is presented here in this forum every day. You came, you got it; now you think you were introducing it. The usual dodging.

In fact, you were flatly beaten in debate. That's on account of your LACK of truth, your lack of spiritual depth, your lack of scriptural discernment. Don't feel too bad. You were indoctrinated by wolves in sheep's clothing. And here, at last you've had a glimpse of the truth. Thanks be to God.

This truth which you seem to reject TODAY, has to be confirmed for you; in your heart, by the Holy Spirit. We are not the ones that can convert, Kevin. God converts. But He is giving you a chance.

As for your mighty admonition: ''There is only ONE way to get to heaven, and that is THROUGH JESUS CHRIST,''

Catholics have been taught this since the days of the holy apostles; they were the first Catholic bishops & priests. You have a Bible only because God bequeathed it to His Holy Church. In the early Church, your own ancestors were taught the truth by Catholic missionaries and priests. ''There is only ONE way to get to heaven, and that is THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!'' A Catholic doctrine. You are a descendent of faithful Catholics. That is the TRUTH as God and His faithful see it! We welcome you back, good soul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Apparently the Protestant interpretation of "THROUGH JESUS CHRIST" is "having beliefs about Jesus Christ, regardless of whether those beliefs are true". It should be obvious to any rational person that all of the conflicting denominational beliefs about Jesus Christ and His teachings cannot possibly represent truth. So evidently it is sufficient that Jesus Christ be the central focus of your beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are actually true. In Catholicism, salvation is "THROUGH THE TRUTH OF JESUS CHRIST". The Catholic Church can make that claim, because its beliefs satisfy the first requirements for truth - UNITY and CONSISTENCY. Disunity in belief means untruth. Inconsistency in belief means untruth. The history of Protestantism is a history of constant division, inconsistency, contradiction, and disunity. That says it all.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

Paul that argument is weak. I could say "Assemblys of God is United and Consistent, all others are false and in chaos." Which Catholicism is right? Roman or Eastern Orthodox? Post Vatican II or Pre Vatican II? There is only on church of Christ(invisible) made up of all the true believers. This church is united, This chuch is one. Our church is guided by the Holy Spirit. There is no salvation outside our church. The gates of hell did not stop Christ from making this church. A visible church is just a place for fellowship.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 02, 2003.

Eugene makes a great boast, "Yes, the truth is presented here in this forum every day."

Maybe according to your doctrine, but NOT in accordance with the word of God.

You wrote, "You came, you got it; now you think you were introducing it. The usual dodging."

The only thing I got in reply was the usual "you cannot interpret anything" blah, blah, blah...

You wrote, "In fact, you were flatly beaten in debate."

Hah!!! This is a very BOLD assertion with absolutely no hint of the truth in these words.

You wrote, "That's on account of your LACK of truth, your lack of spiritual depth, your lack of scriptural discernment."

Once again, accusation thrown out, NO proof offered. blah, blah, blah...

You wrote, "Don't feel too bad. You were indoctrinated by wolves in sheep's clothing. And here, at last you've had a glimpse of the truth. Thanks be to God."

The ONLY truth is in the word of God, and NOT some so called Catholic Church whose doctrines DO NOT even resemble what is taught in the NT.

You wrote, "This truth which you seem to reject TODAY, has to be confirmed for you; in your heart, by the Holy Spirit. We are not the ones that can convert, Kevin. God converts. But He is giving you a chance."

Unfortunately Eugene, you are the one who REJECTS the truth for it is plain to see in God's word that this Church which you claim to cherish so much is guilty of leading many good people on the broad road that leads to destruction. It is an error for Catholics to claim that Christ established the Catholic Church. Jesus built only one church, but that was NOT the Catholic Church. It was His church, the church of Christ! Many will not take time to investigate this false Catholic claim that Christ established only one church and that was the Catholic Church because they do NOT love the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

If the ONLY way to get to heaven is "THROUGH JESUS CHRIST", then Catholics do teach FALSE DOCTRINE when they say that one can be saved without Him.

Paul,

How many times do I have to agree with you that these so called "Protestant" churches are guilty of teaching false doctrine?

They just the same as the Catholic Church from which they are derived will lead ALL men and women who worship in them towards hearing the words "I never knew you" when Jesus returns on judgment day.

The history of the Catholic Church is the burning and killing of millions of heretics and other atrocities Eugene makes a great boast, "Yes, the truth is presented here in this forum every day."

Maybe according to your doctrine, but NOT in accordance with the word of God.

You wrote, "You came, you got it; now you think you were introducing it. The usual dodging."

The only thing I got in reply was the usual "you cannot interpret anything" blah, blah, blah...

You wrote, "In fact, you were flatly beaten in debate."

Hah!!! This is a very BOLD assertion with absolutely no hint of the truth in these words.

You wrote, "That's on account of your LACK of truth, your lack of spiritual depth, your lack of scriptural discernment."

Once again, accusation thrown out, NO proof offered. Blah, Blah, Blah...

You wrote, "Don't feel too bad. You were indoctrinated by wolves in sheep's clothing. And here, at last you've had a glimpse of the truth. Thanks be to God."

The ONLY truth is in the word of God, and NOT some so called Catholic Church whose doctrines DO NOT even resemble what is taught in the NT.

You wrote, "This truth which you seem to reject TODAY, has to be confirmed for you; in your heart, by the Holy Spirit. We are not the ones that can convert, Kevin. God converts. But He is giving you a chance."

Unfortunately Eugene, you are the one who REJECTS the truth for it is plain to see in God's word that this Church which you claim to cherish so much is guilty of leading many good people on the broad road that leads to destruction. It is an error for Catholics to claim that Christ established the Catholic Church. Jesus built only one church, but that was NOT the Catholic Church. It was His church, the church of Christ! Many will not take time to investigate this false Catholic claim that Christ established only one church and that was the Catholic Church because they do NOT love the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

If the ONLY way to get to heaven is "THROUGH JESUS CHRIST", then Catholics do teach FALSE DOCTRINE when they say that one can be saved without Him.

Paul,

How many times do I have to agree with you that these so called "Protestant" churches are guilty of teaching false doctrine?

They just the same as the Catholic Church from which they are derived will lead ALL men and women who worship in them towards hearing the words "I never knew you" when Jesus returns on judgment day.

History provides the truth of the Catholic Church's atrocities committed against humanity as evidenced by their putting to death millions of heretics in the name of Christ during the Inquisition.

To claim that the Catholic Church is the "true Church" is a LIE since they are GUILTY of killing their fellow man and CONTRADICTING Romans 13:10 which states, "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." then this is most certainly NOT the true church.

That says it all!!!

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 02, 2003.

Oh, but Kevin YOU ARE A PROTESTANT! You don't get to change the meaning of words to suit your fancy.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 02, 2003.

Sorry Gail, I already told you the NT knows nothing of a PROTESTANT.

I told you I am a Christian, and have NEVER had anything to do with the Catholic Church. The word of God produces Christians ONLY, and this NEW BIRTH most certainly has NOTHING to do with Catholicism and it's false doctrines.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 02, 2003.

Just for the Record, I do no claim All protestant churches were true and Catholicism was false. There are false protestant religions, I admit, but that still doesn't take away from the Truth of the Word of God. Kevin you are right, the NT doesn't know anything of a Protestant or Catholic. If you could travel back in time and bring people from those NT churches to the future they'd be devastated of the evil history of the Catholic church (that claims ties to them). Even your sub-concious knows that your not a Christian. Ever been asked "Are you Catholic or Christian?" and yet you'll answer Catholic. Catholicism is the true church, the truch church of satan.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 02, 2003.

The brothers in arms, Kevin and D.O. Dumb & Dumber!

You go to great lengths Kevin, to place yourself in the New Testament Church. As some kind of invisible Christian.

But your own ancestors, as well as D.O.s ancestors were Christian followers of Jesus. They followed Jesus by baptism into the Catholic faith. You and he; as well as myself, Gail's all this forum's ancestors were faithful Catholics.

That's simply because in past eras before schism & heresies, there was but ONE Church. The Church Catholic--Universal. One is all; and she was founded by Jesus Christ. Your own little sectarian pulpits are founded by men. You are in a sect started by the Campbellites; and it dates back barely 300 years. There was nothing in the least like your faith for 1,500 years. Historically indisputable.

It is HERE, in this Catholic forum you have once again met Christ's Holy Church. The Church of your blessed ancestors. In their day, it was the ONLY Church. Today it is the Only True Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

"I do no claim All protestant churches were true and Catholicism was false. There are false protestant religions, I admit, but that still doesn't take away from the Truth of the Word of God"

That's right! NOTHING can take away from the truth of the Word of God. What the doctrinal confusion of Protestantism does is condemn the false traditions of sola scriptura and private interpretation. The Word of God remains pure - but an approach to the Word of God that results in such doctrinal chaos is totally bogus.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

That's correct, Paul. No one here is impugning the Bible. We accuse those who blatantly avoid the truth in the scriptures; make up false interpretations in order to combat the Catholic Church--

They're simply acting dishonestly. They are giving affront to the Holy Spirit, who clearly guides ONE Church. A raft of proof is readily available for Protestants. They refuse to accept it; --BUT, not to favor the Word of God, or the truth. To allow them to claim authority. They have no spiritual authority to proclaim the gospel of the apostles. They are not ordained by God.

The only way they can claim authority is to defame the True Church of the apostles. So they interpret the scriptures dishonestly!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Eugene wrote, "The brothers in arms, Kevin and D.O. Dumb & Dumber!"

This is a false statement, because D.O. is NOT my brother.

Eugene wrote, "You go to great lengths Kevin, to place yourself in the New Testament Church. As some kind of invisible Christian."

Sorry, there are NO invisible Christians. Obedience to the word of God ONLY produces Christians. The seed of the kingdom is located ONLY IN the word of God.

You wrote, "But your own ancestors, as well as D.O.s ancestors were Christian followers of Jesus. They followed Jesus by baptism into the Catholic faith. You and he; as well as myself, Gail's all this forum's ancestors were faithful Catholics."

Once again Eugene, you do err NOT knowing the truth. The only thing that Catholicism produces is more Catholics and NOT Christians. You claim that you have obeyed the gospel, but the truth of the matter is you do LIE and NOT speak the truth. If you were baptized as an infant [and you were], then you DID NOT have faith, and DID NOT obey the gospel. To claim that one can obey the gospel as an infant is totally foreign to the pages of the NT. This is another LIE the Catholic Church has pawned off on people to keep them following their false doctrine. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY HIM, and infants DO NOT have that capacity. So, who is guilty of teaching false doctrine?

Eugene wrote, "That's simply because in past eras before schism & heresies, there was but ONE Church. The Church Catholic--Universal."

The Church of the NT was NEVER called Catholic, this is another fabrication of the Catholic Church. You can search far and wide and NOT find this Church in the NT except for those who have gone into apostasy. (1 Tim 4:1-3). There is ONE church, but it is most certainly NOT the Catholic Church for Jesus did NOT plant this Church.

You wrote, "One is all; and she was founded by Jesus Christ. Your own little sectarian pulpits are founded by men. You are in a sect started by the Campbellites; and it dates back barely 300 years. There was nothing in the least like your faith for 1,500 years. Historically indisputable."

You claim I am in a sect started by the Campbellites. I challenge you to PROVE IT!!!

Eugene wrote, "It is HERE, in this Catholic forum you have once again met Christ's Holy Church. The Church of your blessed ancestors. In their day, it was the ONLY Church. Today it is the Only True Church."

If one were to search through the pages of the NT they would NOT find find the Catholic Church. No sane person would ever get the ridiculous and false notion that Peter built the Church because that is NOT what the Church is founded upon. The Church of the NT is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. (Eph 2:20). Unless someone is indoctrinated with this false belief, they would NEVER come to that conclusion.

Eugene wrote, "That's correct, Paul. No one here is impugning the Bible. We accuse those who blatantly avoid the truth in the scriptures; make up false interpretations in order to combat the Catholic Church"

Yea, this has still NOT been proven that I am guilty of making up false interpretations. Eugene is a skilled accuser [So is Satan], but NEVER bothers to back up his claim.

Eugene wrote, "They're simply acting dishonestly. They are giving affront to the Holy Spirit, who clearly guides ONE Church."

Hah! Another of Eugene's false statements. The Holy Spirit does NOT guide anyone EXCEPT THROUGH the WORD OF GOD. The Holy Spirit already completed His job in providing the SEED of the kingdom (See Luke 8:11, Matt 13:19) and His work is FINISHED. To claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in some miraculous way outside of the word of God is something else that Eugene must prove, otherwise his words mean nothing!!! The Holy Spirit has NEVER affected salvation for the alien sinner except THROUGH the WORD OF GOD!!!

Eugene wrote, "A raft of proof is readily available for Protestants. They refuse to accept it; --BUT, not to favor the Word of God, or the truth. To allow them to claim authority. They have no spiritual authority to proclaim the gospel of the apostles. They are not ordained by God."

I don't claim authority and NOT once have I so stated. Jesus said in Matthew 28:18, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." this leaves NOTHING for this man who claims to take the place of God on earth. This MAN OF SIN [The pope], "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess 2:4).

Eugene wrote, "The only way they can claim authority is to defame the True Church of the apostles. So they interpret the scriptures dishonestly!"

Another accusation, NO PROOF offered.

I am still waiting to hear what is the figurative interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 02, 2003.

You produce a yard of text here to rebut my charges, Kevin. But you can't. Every word I've written is true.

There is One Church on earth founded by Christ. It stands evident to the world now for 2,000 years. You have nothing.

The Bible upon which you (with no authority) have proclaimed the single authority is given us from God; to His holy Church by the working of christ's apostles. The Church made the bible a single collection, a canon. The Church certified the inspired books by her authority and the Holy Spirit's. The Church reproduced EVERY SINGLE copy of that book, all hand-written and illuminated by her ordained priests and monks through the first 1,400 years of its existence. You can't show a non-Catholic edition of even ONE Bible prior to the so- called reformation.

More: You can't find in the pages of the Bible a single reference to any coming reformation either. Christ did not sponsor the reformation.

I stand by my charge. Your ancestors were faithful Catholics. The ones who received the Gospel received it from Catholic priests and missionaries. I don't have to prove it. It's patently obvious, unless you descend from Jews or Mongolians or pagans. You're a fool if you can't see this yourself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Eugene, you are gravely mistaken if you believe that every word you have written is true. You are so blinded by the false doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches you that you CANNOT even see the truth as it is PLAINLY WRITTEN in the NT.

I may produce a yard of text, but that is to get you to THINK!!! Use your brain, that is why God gave it to you. The truth of the NT is clear enough for ANYONE to UNDERSTAND if they are willing to SEARCH for the TRUTH.

Jesus provides salvation ONLY to those who OBEY Him. (Hebrews 5:9). Salvation is ONLY located IN CHRIST, NOT in the Catholic Church. It is clear that you have NOT obeyed the gospel, and your soul is in eternal jeopardy because you are still in your sins.

Yes Eugene, there is ONE church on earth founded by Christ. That is a true statement. The only thing the Catholic Church shows is that when she gets absolute power as she did over rulers in the early centuries, they proceeded to fulfill Jesus words in Revelation 13:7.

The word of God was IN CIRCULATION BEFORE the Catholic Church placed them into one volume. Placing the scriptures into one volume does NOT mean that the Catholic Church has any authority. This is another LIE perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Yea, this is the same Church who tried [In vain] to keep the word of God from their own people.

I never said I was a member of any so called reformation, for the word of God knows of NO such thing. My ancestors were CHRISTIANS, and NOT Catholics as you falsely claim. This is a typical response in this forum, "I don't have to prove it", it just goes to show that Catholics CANNOT prove their doctrines from scripture because they are NOT based on the word of God but on the inventions of evil and corrupt men.

The truth is located IN the pages of the NT for ALL to see. God said in John 8:47, "He who is of God HEARS God's words; therefore you DO NOT HEAR, because YOU are NOT OF GOD."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 02, 2003.

Kevin:

You said:

You did NOT answer the question how someone who does not KNOW GOD can have their "THOUGHTS" accuse or excuse them in reference to WHAT? .... if this were ONLY the "Natural Law", how could their thoughts accuse or excuse something to which they have nothing else to compare?

hmm.. I thought I answered this question. Their thoughts accuse or excuse them in relation to the natural law. Having it written on their hearts does not necessarily mean that they have obeyed it. Catholics believe in free will, and so does the Bible. (So do you apparently, I think I saw that in one of your posts.)

You said:

Go back and re-read the First part of Rom 2:12 which states, "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law" and compare this with Eph 2:11-12.

Well you're only quoting half the verse there. Since your point appears to be that I should consider the text I gave (Rom 2:14ff.) in its context, lets look at the full text of Rom 2:12 together with its preceding and following verse:

There is no partiality with God.

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

I'll let the text speak for itself. Note the points I highlight. It doesn't seem to contradict the "invincible ignorance" idea at all. More about Eph.2:11-12 in another post.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 02, 2003.

"The truth of the NT is clear enough for ANYONE to UNDERSTAND if they are willing to SEARCH for the TRUTH"

A: Give us a break! 20,000 conflicting manmade denominations, all claiming that the truth of the NT is clear enough for anyone to understand, and all conflicting with one another on every possible doctrinal issue makes the above statement totally ludicrous. How followers of manmade religion can simply ignore this blatant fact is beyond me. Desperation I guess.

"Jesus provides salvation ONLY to those who OBEY Him. (Hebrews 5:9). Salvation is ONLY located IN CHRIST, not in the Catholic Church"

A: You overlook one rather crucial biblical fact. Jesus is in the Catholic Church. He told the leaders of His Church "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." (Luke 10:16) That's mighty bad news for people who reject His Church. He is there, in His Church. He said so. "I will be with you until the end of time" (Matt 28:20)

"The word of God was IN CIRCULATION BEFORE the Catholic Church placed them into one volume. Placing the scriptures into one volume does NOT mean that the Catholic Church has any authority"

A: Yes, the Word of God was in circulation from the moment the Holy Spirit inspired Catholic leaders to write it. But it was not universally accepted as scripture until the Catholic Church defined it as such at the end of the 4th century. No, compiling the Bible didn't give the Church any authority it didn't already have. Who claims otherwise? The Church had full authority from the moment Jesus gave its appointed head the power of teaching infallibly binding doctrine, and the keys to the kingdom. That was more than 350 years before the Bible was compiled.

"Yea, this is the same Church who tried [In vain] to keep the word of God from their own people"

A: That is sheer fantasy. The Church has consistently preached the Word of God - I repeat, THE Word of God, not thousands of conflicting interpretations of it - for 2,000 years. The only reason YOU have access to the Word of God (or at least the written portions of it that your founder didn't throw out) is that the Holy Catholic Church preserved the Sacred Scriptures from all those who would destroy or alter them. Do you own a Bible? Even an incomplete Protestant one? Thank the Catholic Church, the sole repository and guardian of the scriptures for the entire history of Christianity.

"My ancestors were CHRISTIANS, and NOT Catholics as you falsely claim"

A: Historical fact: There were NO Christians but Catholics for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. It may not taste good to a denominational Christian, but it's the undeniable, clearly documented historical fact.

"The truth is located IN the pages of the NT for ALL to see. God said in John 8:47, "He who is of God HEARS God's words; therefore you DO NOT HEAR, because YOU are NOT OF GOD."

A: Yes He did say that. Reread it carefully. HEARS He said. HEARS! Because the ONLY way early Christians learned the truth of Jesus Christ was by the oral preaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Today, just as then, there are many who refuse to HEAR the Word of God, and instead imagine that they will figure it out for themselves by reading about it in a book. Unfortunately, the book is not much good without its foundation to support it. And we all know what that foundation is, according to the Word of God, don't we!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

Kevin: "My ancestors were CHRISTIANS, and NOT Catholics as you falsely claim" --

Thanks be to God, they were all Catholics. Even those who died in sin and were sent to hell. They were even Catholics. But they died in sin, as lots of baptised Christians do, unfortunately. However, your BLESSED ancestors who repented of their sins --CONFESSING them to their Catholic priests, entered the glory of heaven, where they are now. YOUR ancestors, as sure as the sun rises.

We know this. We know since all Christian faith came by the holy apostles, who built up the Catholic faith, who converted the nations to the Catholic faith. Since no other Church existed through almost 900 years (before the great Schism) we KNOW where the ancestors of every Christian came from.

Your family tree isn't impossible to trace, Kevin. Be courageous, be honest and search your ancestry. You'll find I've told you nothing but the truth.

Later during the 16th century, some ancestors of yours deserted the Catholic Church. Possibly coerced or bribed to enter a heretical sect. If you're of Anglo-Saxon descent, this will have been the English heretic Henry VIII, maybe John Knox. If you're of German or Scandinavian descent, probably Luther or Calvin. These are the false reformers. Heretics, and themselves descended from faithful Catholics.

Your faith was destroyed by these opponents of Christ's holy Church. Because before them in the west there was no other Christianity. You disgrace your own ancestors who loved Jesus Christ. You distort the Word of God. But you may yet be saved if you repent. You have the obligation in Christ to renounce heresy and come back to His True Church. If you don't, after the truth has been exposed to you; YOU are guilty of open heresy. You'll be sent to hell for eternity after this lifetime. That's the absolute truth. To HELL--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Ephesians 2:11-12 (NAB)

Therefore, remember that at one time you, Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by those called the circumcision, which is done in the flesh by human hands, were at that time without Christ, alienated from the community of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Kevin's point is that randir's indians are like the pre-conversion Ephesians in this verse, "without hope". If they never get to encounter a missionary, too bad. I want to point out that the word "hope" can be read in at least two ways. One is hope in an objective sense as in "There is no hope of a camel passing through the eye of a needle". The other is hope in a subjective sense as in "A student doesn't have much hope that he will pass a test (but actually may have done pretty well)." I contend that the subjective sense is what St. Paul means here. My reason is simple. If the Ephesians were "without hope" before in an objective sense, then why are they Christians now? There is an obvious contradiction here. (Of course, somebody who knows Greek can accuse or perhaps excuse me based on the original Greek text.) Therefore I conclude that St. Paul is talking here about the state of the unconverted Ephesians' minds (ignorance), not the state of God's mind (judgement). There is no contradiction with Romans 2:12ff.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 02, 2003.

2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 (NAB)

(6) For it is surely just on God's part to repay with afflictions those who are afflicting you,
(7) and to grant rest along with us to you who are undergoing afflictions, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels,
(8) in blazing fire, inflicting punishment on those who do not acknowledge God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Context, context, context! Notice that the whole passage refers to people who are persecuting the Thessalonian Christians! Randir's indian on the other hand has never met a Christian in his life. (of course, if a missionary does show up on the island, and ends up getting treated as a high-protein snack,... :-)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

If you're of Anglo-Saxon descent, this will have been the English heretic Henry VIII, maybe John Knox. If you're of German or Scandinavian descent

Isn't he a native American? What's a senior chief?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

Stephen,

You still did NOT answer the question. Someone's conscience MUST have something to reference becuase the natural law is what guides the conscience. Since this is the case, one MUST have something OUTSIDE of the natural law in order to compare with this law before their thoughts can accuse or excuse them. Please explain how the Gentiles can do things "in the law" without having any knowledge of the law? To claim that the conscience can excuse them in relation to ONLY the natural law is just pure nonsense. You are the one who is guilty of taking Romans 2:14 out of context.

Paul,

I will tell you once again, that I agree there are MANY conflicting manmade denominations, and where did they come from? The Catholic Church!!! To say that God wrote the NT in such a way where ordinary people could NOT understand without an interpreter is just pure nonsense. They conflict with each other because they do NOT love the truth. Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Those who are in denominations DO NOT love God, for they claim that one can be saved by "faith only" clearly CONTRADICTING what God said in James 2:20, 26.

No, Jesus is FAR from the Cathoilc Church. The Catholic Church CLAIMS they love Jesus, but in works they DENY Him. (Titus 1:16). Please look again at Luke 10:16, Jesus is NOT saying "he who rejects THE CHURCH rejects Me", this is what you WANT this passage to say, but it does NO such thing. Jesus IS with us "until the end of time", for He said in Rom 15:4, "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope."

Once again, CATHOLICS did NOT write the NT. The men who wrote the NT were those men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write and there is NO mention of them being Catholic. The TRUTH of the matter is, the Bible is inspired and has authority, NOT because a Church declared it so, but because God made it so. The word of God DOES NOT owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God. Catholics are WRONG in their ASSUMPTION that the word of God is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The TRUTH of the matter is that Bible study has led millions to utter denial of the Catholic Church and her false doctrines. Private interpretation of the word of God is NOT the cause of religious division. Go back and re-read Ephesians 3:3-4, Ephesians 5:17, 2 Corinthians 1:13.

You wrote, "Historical fact: According to Catholics "There were NO Christians but Catholics for the first 1,000 years of Christianity."

Which fact is that? One that Catholic authorities changed to prop up their false doctrines, or could it be things such as the false decretals etc. that were used to give this corrupt Church more power? Or was it the Inquisition in which this Church was responsible for the killing of millions of people who rejected their false doctrines? This is the undeniable clearly documented historical facts.

It IS POSSIBLE to HEAR and UNDERSTAND what Jesus wrote. To claim that one CANNOT read and UNDERSTAND the word of God must think that all men are IGNORANT. This is just another futile attempt of the Catholic Church to cast doubt on the validity of the word of God for faith does come by hearing God's words. (Rom 10:17). But NOT the hearers are justified, it is the DOERS that will be justified. (Rom 2:13, Jas 1:22). Yes, the foundation of the Church is Jesus (1 Cor 3:11), not some man who claims to usurp His authority!!!

Eugene,

Only those CHRISTIANS [Not Catholics] who OBEY the gospel, and remain faithful until death will go to heaven.

I have said this before, the seed of the kingdom is the word of God. (Luke 8:11). It is possible to re-plant the church of Christ from this seed. My family tree is possible to trace because I have the NT to show me how my ancestors worshipped God. You can search through the pages of the NT and NOT find many of the worship and practices of the Catholic Church for they have long departed from the pattern of NT worship. My faith is IN Christ, and NOT in some man who claims to take the place of Christ on earth.

You can continue to have someone else be responsible for your salvation, but I do fear unless you obey the gospel, and come out of this false church it will be too late. We are ALL responsible for our OWN salvation, NOT that of someone else. Your faith is in MEN, and NOT in God for your salvation.

Stephen,

No, unfortunately "hope" CANNOT be read two ways as you so state. God plainly stated that before Christ came they "the Ephesians" were "without Hope". When Christ came, they had the opportunity to be saved. This talk of "objective" and "subjective" sense is nothing but pure nonsense. He then makes an ignorant statement, "There is no hope of a camel passing through the eye of a needle" which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this passage [except for his inferring that I am a Pharisee].

Then he makes another blunder when he states, "The other is hope in a subjective sense as in "A student doesn't have much hope that he will pass a test (but actually may have done pretty well)." This student still has hope and when he looks at the results of the test, it is NO LONGER HOPE now is it? This is nothing but pure speculation on his part to try to take away the clear meaning of these verses of scripture. The apostle Paul clearly stated that without Christ there is NO hope of salvation, and there are NO contradictions.

Then he makes another error when he states, "Therefore I conclude that St. Paul is talking here about the state of the unconverted Ephesians' minds (ignorance), not the state of God's mind (judgement). There is no contradiction with Romans 2:12ff."

God clearly said that without Christ, they were WITHOUT HOPE. Their ignorance DID not make them safe from God’s wrath. God clearly said in John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." This is why Jesus came into the world to give men an opportunity to be saved, however, men MUST come to Him. (Matt 11:28-30).

God will render each according to their deeds (Rom 2:6), and give to those who DO NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, INDIGNATION and WRATH. (Rom 2:8). The Gentiles are saved the same way as the Jews through OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL. (Acts 2:38). There is NO PARTIALITY WITH GOD. (Rom 2:11).

Stephen continued in his exegesis of 2 Thes 1:6-8 and said, "Context, context, context! Notice that the whole passage refers to people who are persecuting the Thessalonian Christians! Randir's indian on the other hand has never met a Christian in his life. (of course, if a missionary does show up on the island, and ends up getting treated as a high-protein snack,... :-)"

Yes, this does refer to people who are persecuting the Thessalonian Christians however [Paul was reminding them of what Jesus said in Romans 12:19-21], please notice WHEN the wrath of God will be revealed. Was it during their time on earth? Not at all!!! For if the angels have come with Jesus, then you are guilty of saying that the resurrection is already past and are no better than Hymenaeus and Philetus who said the resurrection was already past. (2 Tim 2:17-18). Who can believe it???

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 03, 2003.

"Senior Chief"

I thought meant the Naval rank, but could be an Indian too.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.

We hope to pull you out of the slime of invincible ignorance Kevin; and it appears to me the Holy Spirit sent you into our midst because He intends to pull you out. Do you have to come out kicking & screaming?

We want you to return to the holy faith of your OWN ANCESTORS! Into the glory of salvation, where we now worship the Living God You truly have embraced ignorance with invincibility. But for God nothing is impossible. We render you helpless before his truth, and the Holy Catholic Church prays for you. The Holy Virgin Mary and God's Catholic saints all pray for you. Many are surely ancestors of yours & your family's; some even ordained priests!!!

We are certain. And-- not certain by way of invincible ignorance. We are certain since we've held fast to all that Christ's holy apostles revealed. They revealed to us all the mysteries of God; we believe! Where do you think the Holy Bible came from?

The Bible comes to us from God, as surely as His Church does! The Catholic Church in the world is a matching bookend, a counterpart to His Bible. Both the Bible and the Church spread His Gospel. If that weren't true, He would never have said to the twelve, ''Follow me; you will be fishers of men'' The fishers of men in the world are all Catholic!

Your ancestors, Jimmy Swaggert's ancestors, Billy Graham's ancestors, my ancestors-- all were faithful Catholics! Just as were the APOSTLES! Peter and Paul died for the Catholic faith, the Holy Gospel and Jesus Christ. The same Christ who founded His Church. This is the Church, Kevin. You've found her at last!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.

--------

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.

Eugene,

The ONLY ignorance here is those who put Tradition above the word of God. To claim that Tradition is equal to the word of God, is just another way the Catholic Church claims that her teachings are above that of God's. When the Catholic Church CANNOT justify her doctrines from the word of God, she is quick to retreat to her "Traditions" because no one can prove her wrong, especially if NONE of it is written down for anyone to investigate. Get a grip on reality!!!

If we need someone to interpret the word of God for us, then there is NO need to have the Bible!!! Your faith is in your interpreter, the Church and NOT in God and they will ONLY take you down the broad road that leads to destruction.

If the Church as you state is "infallible", then there is NO need to have the Bible becuase the word of God specifically states that IT IS ABLE to make us wise unto salvation. Once again, there is NO mention of an interpreter in the word of God and NONE is needed for men are not as stupid as the Catholic Church wants everyone to believe.

You keep running around in circles with the same old arguments "Where do you think the Holy Bible came from?", etc...

The Catholic Church is NOT the true Church of God and I challenge you to prove your doctrines from His word. I know you WILL NOT, because you CANNOT.

You prove by your very words how ignorant you are of God's teaching on many things and I pray that God will have mercy on your soul on judgment day for calling Him a liar!

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 03, 2003.

Kevin's points in red, my response in green:

Someone's conscience MUST have something to reference becuase [sic] the natural law is what guides the conscience. Since this is the case, one MUST have something OUTSIDE of the natural law in order to compare with this law ...

Well yes, one has one's behavior or intentions. Say the natural law tells randir's indian that it is wrong to be a cannibal, but he ends up eating his mother-in-law. Then his conscience accuses him. On the other hand, if he heroically resists the temptation, his conscience is clear. The natural law is a benchmark, conscience is a guide as to whether the benchmark has been achieved. Here is my understanding of the terms "conscience" and "natural law".

con·sciencethe sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good. (merriam-webster dictionary)

From the Catholic encyclopedia, "the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us."

... before their thoughts can accuse or excuse them. Please explain how the Gentiles can do things "in the law" without having any knowledge of the law? To claim that the conscience can excuse them in relation to ONLY the natural law is just pure nonsense.

Why does this need an explanation? The Gentile may not know at all that the Torah prohibits murder and stealing, but she may never murder or steal anyway, simply because she is a good woman.

More on Kevin's other points later.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

By the way, the HTML to get colored fonts is something like:

<p style=color:red> ... This is where the text goes .... </p>

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

Stephen,

Please tell us how the natural law can is exactly the same for the person who does NOT condemn himself for eating his mother-in law, [a cannibal, and yes there are people like this in the world], and yet another person's thoughts would excuse him from this same natural law? This conclusion is absurd.

How can one know what the difference is between right and wrong unless someone (God) or something planted it there? Hello???

You wrote, "Why does this need an explanation? The Gentile may not know at all that the Torah prohibits murder and stealing, but she may never murder or steal anyway, simply because she is a good woman."

Let Stephen explain how this woman who does not murder or steal is a "good woman". Did she just invent this on her own that murder or stealing is wrong, or did God implant this "natural law" in her conscience that murder and stealing is wrong? Saul lived in ALL GOOD CONSCIENCE before God (Acts 23:1), but yet he was GUILTY of sending some Christians to their deaths. Saul was a "good man", but his conscience did NOT convict him of doing wrong because he did it in IGNORANCE. Saul was a JEW and he knew that MURDER was WRONG according to the law of Moses. His conscience did NOT convict him of this wrong now did it? Think about it.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 03, 2003.

Kevin,

You are correct to say that not all of our doctrines can be proved by Scripture. However, the Bible does tell us to listen to the Church's oral Tradition. Also, you will find that all of our dogmas were believed by the early Christians. Would you rather listen to someone that was taught by the Apostles or shortly thereafter, or listen to someone who comes up with their own interpretation nearly 2000 years after Jesus' death?

Read the early Church fathers to find what they believe. Let me know if you would like a web site. In the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman, "To go deep into history, is to cease to be Protestant."

I would add or a non-demoninational Christian .

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), July 03, 2003.

Make that non-denominational Christian. An honest mistake.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), July 03, 2003.

The Church Fathers kept me in the Catholic Church. Good cite. You cannot miss the threads of modern Catholicism in them----unless you want to---then raising the dead would not convince one.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Finally, someone agrees with me that NOT all Catholic doctrines can be proved by Scripture. I never thought I would read those words and I say AMEN!!! No, the Bible does NOT tell us to listen to the Church's oral tradition. You will NOT find in the NT where oral tradition would continue to be handed down for this doctrine is foreign to NT teaching. I can understand what the Apostles taught, for they left us the scriptures as proof of their teaching. I can UNDERSTAND what they wrote, it is NOT that difficult.

Reading the early Church fathers does absolutely NOTHING, for many of them differed in their beliefs. To go deep into history does not prove anything except how men do not want to obey the truth as stated in the Bible! It is the word of God that convicts, as Hebrews 4:12 states, "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 03, 2003.

Kevin,

YOU have not offered any scriptural support for your claim that doctrine has to be proven from scripture. It is that unbiblical assumption on your part, that modern tradition of men, which is the greatest barrier to your finding the fullness of truth. Let's get down to basics, shall we? If you claim that (1) ALL your beliefs come from the Bible, AND (2) that ALL Christian beliefs MUST come from the Bible, then please show me WHERE in the Bible that second belief of yours is stated. Otherwise, please stop bringing up unbiblical traditions of men under the guise of Christian teaching.

Yes, the Bible does tell us to listen to the oral Tradition of the Church, for the oral Tradition of the Church was the ONLY source of truth in the earliest days of the Church. In Apostolic times, the statement "don't listen to the oral Tradition of the Church" would be equivalent to "don't listen to our preaching". In fact though, the Apostles did tell the people to listen to their preaching, as well as their writing. "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught,WHETHER BY WORD OF MOUTH OR BY WRITTEN LETTER" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Notice they did not instruct the people to listen to their preaching, then compare it to their letters, and to ignore anything that wasn't also present in a letter. They gave fully equal status to ALL their teaching, both oral (which was the vast majority of it), and written.

You claim: "I can UNDERSTAND what they wrote, it is NOT that difficult."

A: SURE you can. So can Mr. Baptist and Mr. Presbyterian and Mr. Lutheran and Mr. Anglican and Mr. Methodist. They ALL can fully understand the written Word of God, because it just isn't that difficult. Unfortunately, the "understanding" of each directly conflicts with the "understanding" of the rest. So much for "easy to understand"! Maybe if the great Apostle Simon Peter had been Protestant, he too would have found the scriptures "easy to understand", as he drifted off into one denomination or another. But he didn't. He wrote, in reference to the letters of Paul ... "in which are some things HARD TO UNDERSTAND, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16) The destruction he spoke of is apparent in denominationalism.

You are basically right about the early Church Fathers. Their writings provide insight into early interpretations of various doctrines. But the word of a particular Church Father cannot, in and of itself, be taken as a teaching of the Church. The Church Fathers were theologians - not Magisterium. Like today's theologians, they often had conflicting views. Like theologians of today, they offered input to the Magisterium, but they themselves did not define doctrine or teach authoritatively, except in their capacity as bishops of the Church, teaching what the Magisterium had already defined. However, going deeply into history can only bring you to one place - the Holy Catholic Church. To know history is to reject Protestantism, as millions discover every year.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 03, 2003.

Paul,

You wrote, "YOU have not offered any scriptural support for your claim that doctrine has to be proven from scripture. It is that unbiblical assumption on your part, that modern tradition of men, which is the greatest barrier to your finding the fullness of truth."

Really now Paul? Let's take a look at what the word of God says about doctrine. God said in Eph 4:8 that He gave gifts to men (the gifts of the Holy Spirit) verses 11-12 show that He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers in order to equip the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. In verse 13, Paul states these gifts were only temporary until they ALL came to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. The UNITY OF THE FAITH came when the NT was completed in WRITTEN FORM. This is the "perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13:10 for those that were in part "the gifts" were no longer needed since they were able to see Christ "face to face" in the pages of the NT in WRITTEN FORM. Verse 14 PLAINLY states that once we had the WRITTEN NT they would no longer be children (Compare with 1 Corinthians 13:11), tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men. This is why we can ONLY use the NT as our guide and NOT the Church as you falsely claim. How can one test the Spirits (1 John 4:1) as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 without scripture?

Jesus said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."

Jesus concluded in verses 10-11, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." The doctrine of Christ is ONLY found in the pages of the NT.

Here is why belief MUST come from the Bible. God said in Heb 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." How does one get faith? Let Romans 10:17 answer, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Everything required to OBEY the gospel (Romans 1:16), which is God's power to salvation is ONLY obtained from reading and UNDERSTANDING the NT and what God has said is required in order to be saved.

Yes, the early Church followed oral tradition because they did NOT have the written word however, oral tradition, like the spiritual gifts bestowed on the early Church to confirm the word (Mark 16:20) are NO LONGER REQUIRED. Read what I wrote above concerning how they were to "test the spirits". I never said they did NOT follow oral tradition back then, I just asked you to PROVE that oral tradition would continue to be handed down and this you have NOT done.

Yes Paul wrote some things hard to understand, but it is NOT hard to understand the basics of what is required in order to be saved. I have said this before and will restate it again, it is NOT the word of God which causes division, it is the CREEDS [and Catechisms] of MEN who twist the scriptures to their own destruction.

Yea, to know History is also to know the TRUTH about Catholicism and it's false doctrines.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 03, 2003.

Commmentary, Kevin, and speculation is what you are giving, and ALL you are giving. I can pick up a Mathew Henry Commentary and get one thought, then I can pick up Jamieson Faussett and Brown and get another. You are NOT the infallible interpreter of scripture.

No where does scripture say that scripture replaces the Church in authority. You are twisting in the wind with your malinformed postulations on the passages you listed above; pulling out fragments of scripture and then piecing them together like a jigsaw puzzle, and then pouring your OWN MEANINGS ONTO THEM!

You cannot get around it no matter how much you twist and turn, the CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH. And guess what, Kevin YOUR CHURCH HAS NO PEDIGREE! You cannot claim apostolic succesion, you cannot claim infallibility.

You say you are not a Protestant -- Heck, according to you, we can throw out the Daniel Webster dictionery too! You cannot even submit to the authority of the DICTIONERY to determine the meaning of a word. Can you tell me, Kevin, what the meaning of the word "is" is? I doubt it.

The Creeds do not cause division, they encapsulate what a Christian believes. The creeds were forged in the blood of the martyrs of the faith who combatted heresy after heresy and heresy.

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Just like Korah in the wilderness, you REBELL against the leadership Christ gave His church in order to form your own

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 03, 2003.

Catholics are not to believe, because there exists invincible ignorance, that sinners are not damned. They are, whether ignorant or aware of the Gospel.

Salvation in Baptism of Desire is only a possibility in the rare ignorant soul who repents of sin perfectly.

No sinner who dies unrepentent is saved. Not if he's ignorant of Christ's Gospel, nor after hearing it.

But there is always that extraordinary soul by grace of God elected and given his/her Baptism. Because of the virtuous life he/she has lived. ''As you sow, so shall you reap.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.

I'm traveling, so wont be posting for a while. Kevin's comments will be answered when I return. But here very quickly is the Merriam-Webster entry for "hope".

Main Entry: hope
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 archaic : TRUST, RELIANCE
2 a : desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment ; also : expectation of fulfillment or success b : someone or something on which hopes are centered c : something hoped for

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

I'll post that again because part of it looked like HTML tags and got suppressed.

Main Entry: hope
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 archaic : TRUST, RELIANCE
2 a : desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment { came in hopes of seeing you }; also : expectation of fulfillment or success {no hope of a cure} b : someone or something on which hopes are centered {our only hope for victory} c : something hoped for

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

Accusations Gail, and NO PROOF are all you are giving. You can pick up different commentaries and get different thoughts because they were from DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS. Get it!!! You claim that I am NOT the infallible interpreter of scripture, but you DO NOT make any effort on your part to PROVE IT now do you? I never claimed to be "infallible", I am after all Human for we ALL make mistakes. But I can UNDERSTAND and OBEY what God has CLEARLY taught in His word. You people here are good at making accusations, but DO NOT do a very good job at showing that you really know what you are talking about.

You said, "No where does scripture say that scripture replaces the Church in authority."

Funny, I thought Jesus had ALL authority? He PLAINLY stated in Matthew 28:18, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." This DOES NOT leave any room for the Church now does it?

You claim that I am "twisting in the wind" with my "malinformaed postulations" on the scripture I quoted above, but I do NOT see you make any attempt to correct me now do you? If you are going to make an accusation, at least make an attempt to prove it!

You wrote, "You say you are not a Protestant -- Heck, according to you, we can throw out the Daniel Webster dictionery too! You cannot even submit to the authority of the DICTIONERY to determine the meaning of a word. Can you tell me, Kevin, what the meaning of the word "is" is? I doubt it."

Now Gail, this is a false statement. Why do you have to resort to telling a lie when someone doesn't agree with you? I DID NOT say "we can throw out the Daniel Webster dictionary" now did I? Please do NOT put words in my mouth. This is what I said, "I did not say we could not use Webster's English dictionary to define our meaning of words, I stated that "the NEW TESTAMENT KNOWS NOTHING OF A PROTESTANT, OR CATHOLIC FOR THAT MATTER, so Daniel Webster's explanation is irrelevant" So your claiming that "according to you we can throw out the Daniel Webster dictionary" is FALSE. I UNDERSTAND CLEARLY what the meaning of the word "is" is. Once again, you make a FALSE ACCUSATION and DO NOT bother to prove it. It is obvious that you DO NOT understand NT scripture, because you need someone else to explain it to you in order to understand it. Incredible!!! If you can read a book and understand it, then you most certainly can read the word of God and understand it.

Gail, you said "The Creeds do not cause division they encapsulate what a Christian believes". This is true, however, look at the difference between a Methodist Creed, a Baptist Creed, a Presbyterian Creed, and a Catholic Creed. Do they all state the same thing? No they do NOT. A Methodist CANNOT become a Baptist, nor can a Presbyterian become a Catholic. Why is this the case? It is because of their creeds and or catechisms that they are UNABLE to achieve unity. One creed may state that they are saved by "faith only", another creed may state one is saved by "Holy Spirit baptism", and so on ? All of these different creeds and catechisms claim to be based on the word of God, but that is NOT the truth.

Gail, unfortunately you are once again mistaken. It is hard to "REBELL" against something which does NOT even have the right to exist. The Catholic Church has NEVER belonged to Christ and their doctrines are FAR from the teachings of the NT Church. Hopefully one day before it is too late you will wake up and realize that you have been deceived and come to a knowledge of the truth of the gospel.

Eugene,

There is NO such thing as a "Baptism of Desire", this is another INVENTION of the Catholic Church. This seems like the same ignorant argument that denominationalists try to use to claim "what if someone who on the way to being baptized was hit by a speeding camel and was killed"? This is something else that is foreign to NT teaching.

You wrote, "But there is always that extraordinary soul by grace of God elected and given his/her Baptism. Because of the virtuous life he/she has lived. ''As you sow, so shall you reap.''

Once again, unless someone OBEYS THE GOSPEL [for it is God's power to salvation ? Rom 1:16], they will NOT be saved.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 03, 2003.

Kevin,

How can you say that scripture does not tell us to listen to the spoken Tradition of the Church. I am sure you have seen these, but I guess I will have to post them for your sake.

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Tim 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

What you must understand is that for 300+ years there was no Bible. So the teachings were all verbal (i.e. Tradition). The canon of the Bible was then established to assist in the teachings of the Church. Not to be the sole rule of faith.

Seriously, you do need to read the early Church fathers. There was some arguing, but the main dogmas of the Church are clearly stated. If the first couple generations of Christians believed in these truths, shouldn't you?

-- Glenn (Glenn@nospam.com), July 03, 2003.

Stop using the "there was no bibles, so sacred tradition is right" defense. It was the christians obligation of whoever owned that bible to follow it alone and share the gospel with people. Of course the bible says to hold on to your traditions, the traditions that do not contradict the scriptures. Catholicisms 'sacred tradition' contradicts everything!(almost) Two contradicting statements cannot be both true (i.e. I was at the park, I was not at the Park). Roman Catholicism took advantage of the fact that people didn't have bibles, they lured them into thinking they needed the Catholic church. It was till the blessed Reformation that people finally saw the truth, and split from Catholicism. Paul, before you go on about the Millions of Denominations, PROVE IT! (You can't!)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 03, 2003.

"Two contradicting statements cannot be both true "

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So please explain the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism!!

There are NO conflicting doctrines in Catholicism!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 03, 2003.

This is coming in from completely out of left field, but where you wrote "YES" there like that Paul, there's this optical illusion that makes it look like it inclines upwards from left to right. Does anyone else see that? Maybe I really am going insane, kiwi. lol!

Well, I refrained from this thread if you can believe that. Have fun hashing this one out. God bless all and have a fun 4th.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 04, 2003.

Glenn,

You wrote, "How can you say that scripture does not tell us to listen to the spoken Tradition of the Church. I am sure you have seen these, but I guess I will have to post them for your sake."

Yes, I have seen them and read them and I have already wrote concerning this earlier in this thread, please go back and re-read what I wrote.

You wrote, "What you must understand is that for 300+ years there was no Bible. So the teachings were all verbal (i.e. Tradition). The canon of the Bible was then established to assist in the teachings of the Church. Not to be the sole rule of faith."

Glenn, that is NOT true. I also posted on this topic earlier in this thread. Please go back and re-read what I wrote.

You wrote, "Seriously, you do need to read the early Church fathers. There was some arguing, but the main dogmas of the Church are clearly stated. If the first couple generations of Christians believed in these truths, shouldn't you?"

These so-called Church Fathers also presented different doctrinesare and are NO better than all of these conflicting doctrines that are in the world today.

Yea, the Catholic Church invented PURGATORY to make their people PAY more money (buying indulgences - which is another doctrine foreign to the word of God) so their family and friends could escape with a lesser penalty. Who in their right mind would believe this idiotic doctrine?

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 04, 2003.

Paul wrote, "There are NO conflicting doctrines in Catholicism!"

Ha! Yea, which of these Roman Catholic denominations are the true Church? Is it the Assyrian Church? Is it the Byzantine rite? Is it the Eastern Church? Is it the Orthodox Eastern Church? Is it the Greek Church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church? Is it the Marionites Church? Is it the Melchites Church? Is it the Catholic Church? Or maybe it might be the Celtic Church?

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 04, 2003.

Those "denominations" do not differ at all on doctrine.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 04, 2003.

Kevin says: (re "no hope" in Ephesians 2:11-12, which he wants to use to prove that randir's indian is going to hell):

No, unfortunately "hope" CANNOT be read two ways as you so state. God plainly stated that before Christ came they "the Ephesians" were "without Hope". When Christ came, they had the opportunity to be saved.

Well see the Webster dictionary definitions posted above. Both my meanings and a couple more. If they previously had no hope in an absolute sense, as in the mind of God, then they still would have no hope even after Christ. The meaning of the word that makes more sense therefore is hope in the sense of an expectation in their own minds. I could be wrong. The original Greek should be checked.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 04, 2003.

David Ortiz:
WE DID NOT *USE* '' '' a --"there was no bibles, so sacred tradition is right" defense.The Catholic Church is not on the defensive. You've once again failed to understand. It was the christians obligation of whoever owned that bible to follow it alone and share the gospel with people. (Only a total idiot would think this, in a vicious circle,) That is Sacred Tradition, D.O.--!!! Share the Gospel is PREACH THE GOSPEL, D.O.-- and the Catholic Church did just that, for at least the first 70-100 years. Matthew's gospel wasn't even written before around 70 A.D. ''The Chrisitians obligation'' you're talking about is CATHOLIC obligations; and the church WAS ''sharing'' it. Of course the Bible says to hold on to your traditions, the traditions that do not contradict the scriptures. The apostle's traditions (which the Church holds in faith,) are NEVER contrary to scripture. Heretical teachers contradict Sacred Tradition, and do not interpret scripture nor everything the apostles revealed worth a nickel. Including you & Kevin. You don't have a clue, neither does poor Kevin! Catholicisms 'sacred tradition' contradicts everything!(almost) Two contradicting statements cannot be both true--(???)

You're the contradicting statement, and you've never had the least success contradicting the Catholic Church. You can't interpret the Bible, so you're sure not able to tell anybody what's a contradiction & what isn't.

Lord Jesus Our Saviour, pour forth Thy Holy Spirit on the darkened souls of Kevin, David, and all lost sheep of your fold, the Holy Catholic Church. We beseech Thee relieve the blindness and fear that they feel for Thy glorious revelations through the Church Thy Bride. Thine enemy has these two good men trapped in his coils through the influence of false teachers who corrupted Thy Holy Word. Help them now, we pray, O Most Sacred Heart of Jesus!

We Thank thee for preserving in Thy Holy Church all Thy Divine Word, both in Scriptures and the living Tradition of Thy holy apostles. We thank Thee always Jesus Christ, Holy and Eternal Son of the Father, who rules with Him and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever, Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 04, 2003.

Kevin is right and yet he's totally wrong in saying ''No hope'' exists for the pagan.

He's right not because of the Gospel particularly. He is partly right, because the pagan by every ordinary rule lives in sin. Sin is what damns him, not the ignorance he lives in.

The Gospel brings light into the darkness. Light is what brings men back to God in repentence. Jesus is the Light! The Gospel is the message (Good News) of Christ's salvation for all who REPENT and are baptised. (Matt 4:17)

Without the gospel, the Indian has no hope of leaving sin out of his life. He has no way to know he must repent, EXCEPT the knowledge of right & wrong God gives every man naturally. The human law; and remorse for doing evil. Even a pagan knows in his heart when he's done evil. He can choose to live in honor & righteousness by the light God may grant him, in natural ways. God was merciful toward men long before the first scriptures. He forgave many who never heard his Word. But always it was through suffering and submitting to his Will, that His forgiveness was received. We must consider also, that although a great many hear the Gospel, the Gospel is not their salvation. They all must repent. If not, they are damned.

''A humble and contrite heart thou wilt not spurn'', says David the Prophet. Even in the rare and extraordinary way by which the invincibly ignorant pagan may come to salvation, it is through Jesus Christ only that he is saved. No other Saviour can forgive him, sanctify him or save him from his sins. Therefore, the Church teaches rightly, as we've explained. There is no contradiction in the teaching of a Baptism of Desire and every Word that has been revealed to us in the scriptures.

How can we be sure? By realising what the Good News, the Holy Bible primarily teaches-- Salvation is through Christ. And without repentence of sin, there is no salvation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 04, 2003.

Stephen,

You wrote, "If they previously had no hope in an absolute sense, as in the mind of God, then they still would have no hope even after Christ."

This is just pure nonsense. Who said this passage has anything to do with the "mind of God"? You are really stretching and twisting to try to prove your point. It is the "Ephesians" who were without "hope", this has NOTHING to do with the "mind of God". It seems that you are even worse than Paul who earlier tried to tell me that "God does not exact vengeance on anyone", and when I proved him wrong, he retreated to the position that this passage had a "figurative" and not "literal" meaning.

You wrote, "The meaning of the word that makes more sense therefore is hope in the sense of an expectation in their own minds. I could be wrong. The original Greek should be checked."

Yea, this is what I have been saying all along!!! LOL!!! There is no problem interpreting this passage that is of course unless you are already biased [as everyone here is] in your Catholic thinking that one can be saved without ever hearing of Christ.

Eugene wrote, "Matthew's gospel wasn't even written before around 70 A.D."

This is something else that Eugene does NOT know what she is talking about. Matthew wrote this gospel account PRIOR to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 because he describes Jesus prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 24:2) [which happened in A.D. 70] as if it had NOT occurred already.

Eugene wrote, "Heretical teachers contradict Sacred Tradition, and do not interpret scripture nor everything the apostles revealed worth a nickel. Including you & Kevin."

Yea, the Catholic Church continues to believe "Sacred Tradition" was handed down from the apostles, but when pressed to provide this tradition in WRITING, they scoff and tell you they do NOT have to provide it. They CANNOT provided it, because it is NOT written down anywhere. This is most convenient, because NO one can check to see if this is ACTUALLY the TRUTH [that "Sacred Tradition" is also the word of God].

Eugene wrote, "You don't have a clue, neither does poor Kevin!"

Please NOTICE how Eugene continues to make "ACCUSATIONS" with NO PROOF that this is the case? Incredible. This is a standard Catholic answer, they would prove it if their doctrines were recorded for all to see in the NT, however, since this is NOT the case, all they can do is like their father Satan and that is to ACCUSE those who contradict them of "not having a clue".

It is interesting to note how 2 Thessalonians 3-12, speaks specifically of the pope "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Who else would this passage be speaking of who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ" and CLAIMS to take the "place of Christ on earth". Catholics "DO NOT LOVE THE TRUTH", otherwise they would see that their doctrines CONTRADICT the word of God.

Eugene wrote, "You're the contradicting statement, and you've never had the least success contradicting the Catholic Church. You can't interpret the Bible, so you're sure not able to tell anybody what's a contradiction & what isn't."

Accusation + NO PROOF = SHALLOW WORDS.

Unfortunately Gail, God did NOT HEAR your prayer because you are still "IN YOUR SINS". God said in "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him." (John 9:31). You are NOT of God, because you do NOT HEAR God's words. (John 8:47).

Gail wrote, "Kevin, Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to PETER. Jesus gave the Shepherd's mantle to PETER. Jesus breathed upon the disciples and said, "Whosoever sins you forgive are forgiven. Whosoever sins you retain are retained." "IF THAT ISN'T AUTHORITY, THEN WHAT IS? Jesus said, "If you have a grievance take it to the Church." St. Paul says "THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH."

No Gail, Jesus did NOT ONLY give the keys of the kingdom to PETER, he ALSO gave them to ALL of the apostles. (See Matt 18:18). The Church is built on the foundation of the APOSTLES [No mention of Peter being the head] and PROPHETS, with Jesus Christ being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE. (Eph 2:20). Jesus stated in Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 1:1-2 that Jesus has ALL authority. His authority is located in His word the Bible. (John 12:48). The apostles did NOT teach their own doctrine, but what Jesus specifically directed them through the Holy Spirit to only teach what He commanded. (Acts 1:1-2, 1 Cor 14:37). The Church ONLY proclaims the truth, it does NOT legislate truth. Please tell me Gail how the apostles "forgave sins" according to

Gail wrote, "Purgatory -- taken out of the Bible by Protestants who omitted SEVEN BOOKS ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY!"

NO, it was the Catholics who ADDED these books, for Catholics DID NOT have the AUTHORITY to ADD books to the OT because that AUTHORITY belonged ONLY to the JEWS to whom were entrusted the "oracles of God"!!! (Romans 3:1-2).

Gail wrote, "P.S. So, Kevin, do you trust Webster's meaning of the word "Protestant" or not?"

I have already stated my thoughts on this subject that Webster?s meaning of the word "Protestant" is IRRELEVANT because it is NOT in the word of God.

Eugene wrote, "Kevin is right and yet he's totally wrong in saying ''No hope'' exists for the pagan."

God wrote, "that at that time you were WITHOUT CHRIST, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having NO HOPE and WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD." (Eph 2:12).

Eugene wrote, "He's right not because of the Gospel particularly. He is partly right, because the pagan by every ordinary rule lives in sin. Sin is what damns him, not the ignorance he lives in."

Yes, ignorance DOES CONDEMN. God said in 2 Thess 1:8, "?TAKING VENGEANCE ON THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD?"

Yes, it is SIN that CONDEMNS. (See Romans chapter 5).

Eugene wrote, "Without the gospel, the Indian has no hope of leaving sin out of his life. He has no way to know he must repent, EXCEPT the knowledge of right & wrong God gives every man naturally. The human law; and remorse for doing evil. Even a pagan knows in his heart when he's done evil. He can choose to live in honor & righteousness by the light God may grant him, in natural ways. God was merciful toward men long before the first scriptures. He forgave many who never heard his Word. But always it was through suffering and submitting to his Will, that His forgiveness was received. We must consider also, that although a great many hear the Gospel, the Gospel is not their salvation. They all must repent. If not, they are damned."

Eugene makes the same mistake Stephen makes when he tries to state that "the knowledge of right & wrong God gives every man naturally" will allow him to repent if he does evil. Let Eugene tell everyone here how this same law can cause one man to eat humans and it is not a burden on his conscience and the same man somewhere else claims that this is evil? This is nothing but pure IGNORANCE of the word of God. Let God speak, "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? " (Rom 2:4). How does God accomplish this? Let God speak again, "?it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor 1:21).

Yes, without repentance of sin, there is NO salvation. How can one know what sin is? The apostle Paul said in Romans 7:7, "? I would not have known sin except through the law."

There is still no explanation provided of what this so-called "Baptism of desire" is in reference to? The word of God knows of NO such thing.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 05, 2003.

Kevin, You said, "Unfortunately Gail, God did NOT HEAR your prayer because you are still "IN YOUR SINS". God said in "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him." (John 9:31). You are NOT of God, because you do NOT HEAR God's words. (John 8:47)."

I think further discussion is pointless.

Gail

P.S. Kevin, you need some help man, seriously!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 05, 2003.

Kevin: All your last, verbose and prideful post is ignorant. I single this out: ''gene wrote, "You're the contradicting statement, and you've never had the least success contradicting the Catholic Church. You can't interpret the Bible, so you're sure not able to tell anybody what's a contradiction & what isn't.''

Accusation + NO PROOF = SHALLOW WORDS.

Wrong, Mr. Bigot. --Your own words accuse you. The proof is evident in your own SHALLOW interpretations of God's revealed truth.

For instance, in your bigotted haste to heap scorn on Catholics (something evil by definition,) Your falsehoods stick out like horns: ''Note how 2 Thessalonians 3- 12, speaks specifically of the Pope "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.''

--whereas, Thessalonians says nothing remotely as you interpret. You convict yourself of evil intent and misconstruing the Word of God.

You apply words of the epistle to your OWN ends, which is simple heresy. The meaning of that verse clearly refers to Antichrist. You are closer to him than the Vicar of Christ; who adores Christ, as all catholics do. A Vicar, let me inform you, who definitely worships God -- and never was or ever will be ''worshipped'' by our Church. -- You flounder around with: [the Pope] ''showing himself that he is God,'' in blinded self-absorption. Did you expect this forum to believe these lies? It's a mortal sin to bear false witness, Kevin. You have committed a grave sin in the public forum.

You've borne false witness against the true Vicar of Christ in the world. He succeeds Saint Peter, which makes him holder here on earth --of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It's easily shown in the Bible, which you profess to worship (as God itself). --You make no sense at all, except to other bigots like yourself. You continue to serve the devil. I formally request our Moderator begin deleting every new post you interrupt us with. Starting this day, July 5, 2003.

We'll see whose words are ''shallow'' Bigot.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 05, 2003.

So, it is Jesus who is the ROCK on which His Church was built and NOT Peter.

Ooh, I love this one. Funny, I would have thought you had run across this before now.

Jesus gave Peter his name (somewhere in John's gospel; I haven't got my Bible beside me). Guess what? Petros (Greek) or Kepha/Cephas (Aramaic) means "rock". Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, in which case the words "Peter" and "rock" would be identical. In Greek, however, the word "petra" is feminine, so the translator changed the gender in order to apply this word to Peter, or "Petros".

In other words, Jesus was saying, "You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church."

BTW, it usually mentions this in a footnote to the verse.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 05, 2003.

Moderator,

I take it that you would rather delete my posts than have someone answer them, that is ok, becuase I save all of my posts and can re-post anytime it is necessary. If you claim that I am breaking the forum rules by bringing a charge against your faith, then you might as well censor those who are guilty of doing the same thing to those who oppose you here in this forum. If you choose not to do this, then you are a hypocrite for those Catholics here are guilty of doing the same thing your forum rules do not allow.

Catherine,

Unfortunately for you, the Holy Spirit deemed it necessary to write the New Testament in Greek, so it DOES NOT matter that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and YES in Greek it DOES specify a difference between Peter [Petros] and Rock [Petra]. Your argument is based upon FALSE premises and is NOT in accordance with the word of God.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 05, 2003.

The difference between Petros and Petra, as used in this verse, as anyone familiar with scriptural translation realizes, is merely a Greek grammatical quirk which disallows feminine nouns being used as mens' names unless they are first masculinized. The fact that both meanings are identical is apparent, first from the fact that Jesus used the same word - Kepha, meaning "rock" - in both instances; and secondly from the fact that every linguistic expert, Catholic or Protestant, who translates this text from Greek into any other language, always renders the two words the same in the new language, since they are aware of the source of the similarity in Greek.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 05, 2003.

You needn't quibble with Kevin, Paul. No one with the least impartiality can uphold the biased protestant interpretations of the word Cephas, Peter.

It is necessary for the heretics to resist a natural interpretation of Rock. Otherwise Kevin would have to concede the God-given primacy of the bishops of Rome. The conflict of interest is too plain not to condemn their little ''language'' explanation; as if out of nowhere they were Greek scholars!!!

Peter is Rock. Peter was Simon, called Peter in the gospel narratives. Nothing's going to diminish him now. He was chosen by Christ as rock upon which to build His everlastin Church.

What all of us have to face is the reality of Satan. No one who serves Jesus Christ has a problem with the direct and natural meaning of words like ''rock''. Only the bashers of our Catholic faith; all who have fallen under Satan's malicious power. Kevin has no other way to discredit the words of Jesus Christ's people. It can really go to pathetic extremes. Look at their helplessness versus the truth. May God forgive them for their dishonesty.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 05, 2003.

Paul-- Why aren't you deleting the pernicious and insulting posts of this bigot? Isn't he plainly an anti-Catholic and a bigot?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 05, 2003.

Kevin says:

You wrote, "If they previously had no hope in an absolute sense, as in the mind of God, then they still would have no hope even after Christ."

This is just pure nonsense. Who said this passage has anything to do with the "mind of God"? You are really stretching and twisting to try to prove your point. It is the "Ephesians" who were without "hope", this has NOTHING to do with the "mind of God".

Ignoring the ad hominem comments, the last sentence of Kevin's quoted above is exactly my point. The passage has nothing to do with the "mind of God" rather it is about the minds of the Ephesians.

Let's look at the Greek. The Greek word can be romanized as "elpis" which (according to the lexicon at www.greekbible.com) has a subjective meaning, in terms of the expectation in people's minds. Here is what the lexicon has to say:

elpiV,n {el-pece'}
1) expectation of evil, fear 2) expectation of good, hope 2a) in the Christian sense 2a1) joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation 3) on hope, in hope, having hope 3a) the author of hope, or he who is its foundation 3b) the thing hoped for

The meaning that I argue for in this text is 2) specifically 2a1) and I hope Kevin agrees. Note that it refers to a state of mind (words like "joyful" and "confident" do not qualify an abstract probability).

Kevin's failure to recognize the difference between an objective and a subjective probability is actually less egregious than it seems. It is a direct consequence of his sola fide world in which somebody who has a "joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation" automatically gets saved. In this world, the Ephesian's state of mind exactly corresponds to the actual reality of his salvation (or not).

Catholics disagree. But since that's a different issue, let me just direct Kevin to Sungenis's book "Not by Faith alone".

Note that I don't know any Greek, so my efforts at exegesis should merely be regarded as an amateur's suggestion. In particular, "elpis" in Eph 2:12 could be a title for Christ, as in sense 3a) above, or a synonym for salvation itself as in sense 3b) above. 3b) particularly would be more difficult to reconcile with "invincible ignorance" and Romans 2:11ff. However, the lexicon entry quoted above indicates that the usage 3) occurs only in certain special grammatical contexts. Unfortunately, I have to admit my ignorance of whether this meaning is admissible in the current text.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 05, 2003.

I earlier made the point that 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 refers specifically to some people who were persecuting the Thessalonians. It therefore does not apply to randir's indian. Kevin's response:

Yes, this does refer to people who are persecuting the Thessalonian Christians however [Paul was reminding them of what Jesus said in Romans 12:19-21], please notice WHEN the wrath of God will be revealed. Was it during their time on earth? Not at all!!! For if the angels have come with Jesus, then you are guilty of saying that the resurrection is already past and are no better than Hymenaeus and Philetus who said the resurrection was already past. (2 Tim 2:17-18). Who can believe it???

eh? When was I (or anyone else) saying anything about the timing of the resurrection? My argument was solely this: the passage cannot be used as a proof-text to show that randir's Indian is bound for hell.

Another point. Kevin asked for a proof-text for "baptism for desire". Try the passage where the good thief asked Christ to take him to paradise.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 06, 2003.

I regret to notice that Kevin still apparently refuses to recognize Rom.2:12ff. as a proof-text for the idea that it is possible for the virtuous gentile to be saved. Since this seems to be the plain straightforward meaning of the text, Kevin obviously is not taking it at face value. I would be interested to know how he interprets the text to be consistent with his belief that all non-Christians are going to hell.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 06, 2003.

Paul,

There is a BIG difference between "Petros" and "Petra" as used in this verse. This is NOT merely a "Greek grammatical quirk" as you so state, otherwise the translators would have translated the passage exactly how you want it to be translated. The passage does NOT say, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and YOU I will build My church,".

Unfortunately for you, this passage says NO such thing. If this were the case [that Peter is the head of the Church], then the Holy Spirit who inspired the NT to be written would have CLEARLY and PLAINLY stated this to be the case. The Church was built on Peter's confession of Jesus as the "Son of God". I say again, the Holy Spirit did NOT use the word "kepha" to translate rock in this passage, and the Holy Spirit DID MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO WORDS IN THE GREEK [petros = a small stone and petra = a boulder] language in which the NT was first produced in written form.

Stephen once again spouts nonsense in his reply which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the text in Ephesians is remotely talking about. He continues to quibble about the word "hope", but yet the passage PLAINLY states that without Christ, they had NO hope. There is NO salvation for those who are not "in Christ". (See Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:26-27). How can those who are not "in Christ", have any hope of salvation, if they have NOT been taught the gospel which is God's power to save? (See Rom 1:16). God is NO respector of persons, the Gentiles are saved in the SAME WAY as the Jews. (See Acts 2:39).

Stephen did NOT answer my question about the ressurection in 2 Thes 1:7-8 as evidenced by his statment, "eh? When was I (or anyone else) saying anything about the timing of the resurrection? My argument was solely this: the passage cannot be used as a proof-text to show that randir's Indian is bound for hell."

Your point is wrong in that first you stated that the Thessalonian Christians were being persecuted and you did NOT state when God would return in judgment on those who were guilty of doing the persecution. I merely stated that God would come in judgment on these persecutors when Jesus returned on judgment day. You did NOT answer this question.

Stephen wrote, "Another point. Kevin asked for a proof-text for "baptism for desire". Try the passage where the good thief asked Christ to take him to paradise."

Unfortunately for Stephen, the "good thief" died before the terms of the New Covenant were given on Pentecost in AD 33. He lived BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ and BEFORE the Great Commission command to be baptized was even given (Matt 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16).

Stephen wrote, "I regret to notice that Kevin still apparently refuses to recognize Rom.2:12ff. as a proof-text for the idea that it is possible for the virtuous gentile to be saved. Since this seems to be the plain straightforward meaning of the text, Kevin obviously is not taking it at face value. I would be interested to know how he interprets the text to be consistent with his belief that all non-Christians are going to hell."

Well Stephen, you also did NOT answer my question how the Gentiles can "by nature" do the things "in the law" without having any KNOWLEDGE of the Law? You made an attempt to try to state that the "conscience" is what accuses or excuses by the "natural law", however you did NOT address the questions I posed to you concerning this matter in my last reply to you?

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), July 06, 2003.

Dear Kevin,
I quote your idiotic words:

''I say again, the Holy Spirit did NOT use the word "kepha" to translate rock in this passage, and the Holy Spirit DID MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO WORDS IN THE GREEK
[petros = a small stone and petra = a boulder]

language in which the NT was first produced in written form.'' Since you are hardly one to say WHAT the holy Spirit would have or wouldn't have done in the NT, this is rejected. And-- Peter means ROCK, not ''boulder''.

ABOVE ALL: Who cares what Kevin ''says again''--??? Do you mean the repetition makes you correct? You just reiterate a stupid error. The Church was founded by Whom? By Christ. Upon what? Upon Rock. Thou (Simon bar Jona) art Peter, means what? Thou art ROCK. It's the truth and you'll never change it.

Your wishful attempts at turning Jesus Christ's plain statement to your advantage (repeatedly) make you just a blasphemer. You not only repudiate the Word of Christ in the gospel. You tamper with the holy scripture!

As a Greek scholar you flunk. As a biblical scholar, you flunk. As an exegesist your a poor casuist. As an intruder here in the forum, you're a BIGOT.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

As desperately as you would like to believe in this Petros/Petra myth, the facts prove you wrong. First, note that the man Jesus was speaking to was not named Peter. He was named Simon, as indicated in Matt 16:17 ... "And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven". The Apostle Simon had never been called "Peter" previous to this moment. But at this moment, as indicated in the very next verse, Jesus changed Simon's name ... "I also say to you that you are Peter". Only, Jesus didn't say "you are Peter", because he wasn't speaking English. He said you are "Kepha", which is the Aramaic word for "Rock". Some modern translations retain this Aramaic referrence, using "Cephas", a transliteration of "Kepha", in referring to Simon. Jesus then completed His sentence, using "Kepha" again ... "I also say to you [Simon] that you are Kepha [Rock], and upon this Kepha [Rock] I will build My church". This was the actual statement made by Jesus Christ to the Apostle Simon (with all the words in Aramaic, obviously). This was the way the quote was rendered in all early Christian teaching, until Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek. Since he was writing in Greek, he had to translate all quotes from Jesus into Greek, since Jesus didn't speek Greek. The Greek equivalent of the Aramaic "Kepha" was and still is "Petra". So, since "Kepha" had been used by Jesus in both places in this sentence, Matthew used "Petra" in both places. However, this presented a small grammatical problem, since "Petra" is a feminine noun, and Greek does not allow a feminine noun to be used as a man's name. Matthew recognized that this statement of Jesus to Simon constituted an actual name change. Therefore, to use "Petra" in that context, as Simon's new name, the word had to be masculinized by replacing the feminine "-a" suffix with the masculine suffix "-os", yielding "Petros". That is the ONLY reason why the word appears with two different spellings in the Greek, and ONLY the Greek text. Nevertheless, it is one and the same word. Unfortunately, a Greek masculine noun "petros" already existed, meaning "a small chip of stone" from a sculptor's chisel, or more loosely translated, a pebble. Those with much animosity toward the True Church, and very little knowledge of sciptural translation, sieze upon this fact in a pitiful effort to suggest that Simon was not the Rock Jesus was referring to. They think Jesus changed Simon's name to "Pebble", and then stated that He would build His Church on some other Rock. Some of them argue that this other Rock was Himself. Others argue that it was Peter's profession of faith. Even while they reject the true meaning of scripture, they still can't agree among themselves as to which wrong interpretation is the right wrong interpretation.

According to such people, the passage reads like this ... "Simon, you have been greatly blessed by God! You are an insignificant pebble, and I am going to build my Church on someone else, not on you. But still, whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Oh, and even though you will hold no special place in my Church, here are the keys to my kingdom".

The rational, sensible, spiritual, inspired, Catholic sense of the passage reads like this ... "Simon, you have been greatly blessed by God! Because of this speacial annointing, you are henceforth Rock, and upon THIS very Rock I will build my Church. Since you will hold this unique position of pastorship, I am specially equipping you for that ministry. Whatsoever YOU bind upon earth is bound in heaven. I delegate to you the authority needed for such headship, symbolized by the keys to my kingdom."

This passage demonstrates vividly how far the desperate will go in distorting the Word of God in a vain attempt to create an illusion of legitimacy for their novel, anti-biblical traditions.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 06, 2003.

Kevin, I answer you not because you deserve it, but to neutralize, intentionally, the evil you try to do. Even if I never convert you-- a tall order, since you're caught in the devil's snare) --I may at least keep another Christian out of your grasp. It's like doing what's necessary when a fly is in the dining room. You kill it.

Our forum isn't a platform for heretical teachers. We're faithful Catholics, as your ancestors also were. It's our duty in faith to denounce false preachers. Most of all they who presume to speak for the likes and dislikes of the Holy Spirit! Your version of a distinction by Him-- as to word parsings rocks vs. pebbles in an ancient language, is totally BORING to a faithful Catholic.

Comparing your oddball interpretations with the teaching of God's people, is like calling a termite our master.

I have to warn you. As long as you continue here flagrantly serving the devil, we will have no choice except to treat you as a handy buffoon. You are just here for laughs!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

Enough is enough. None so ignorant as those choose ignorance by closing the door to truth. Go peddle your silliness somewhere else.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 06, 2003.

Now only THAT, Eugene, this fellow, Kevin thinks HE IS the Holy Spirit.

See what he writes me, "Unfortunately Gail, God did NOT HEAR your prayer because you are still "IN YOUR SINS". God said in "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him." (John 9:31). You are NOT of God, because you do NOT HEAR God's words."

This fellow can unequivocally declare that I do not HEAR from God, I am STILL IN MY SINS, and I AM NOT OF GOD! Why? Apparently because I do not follow this "bad actor" into his wayward doctrines!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2003.

Friends,
Kevin hit rock bottom on the forum yesterday; when he quoted a verse in Thessalonians, as if it ''proved'' our Holy Father is the Antichrist. Kevin went too far; he stated unequivocally that the Pope sits in the place of God and makes himself to be worshipped. He called us idolaters who worship the Pope.

These aren't any longer simple disagreements over a parsed sentence or phrase. This is blaspheming God Himself in the Holy Spirit as well as the Bible! And bearing false witness against another human being; a Christian who is the Vicar of Christ in the world! --

To give a mistaken opinion is one thing; but to defame the Pope in our Catholic forum-- and not get deletion for it, --that's the pits. No forgiveness at all, until Kevin repents publicly. Since we know he won't (he serves the devil), then he ought to stay out of here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.

Unfortunately for you, the Holy Spirit deemed it necessary to write the New Testament in Greek, so it DOES NOT matter that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and YES in Greek it DOES specify a difference between Peter [Petros] and Rock [Petra]. Your argument is based upon FALSE premises and is NOT in accordance with the word of God.

Sheesh, throw out the New Revised Standard Version, the KJV, the Jerusalem Bible, the Good News Bible, etc.

Let's all go and learn first century Greek and Aramaic, so we can read what the Holy Spirit actually has to tell us!

(I thought Protestants wanted to make the Bible more accessible, not less.)

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 06, 2003.

Here is a summary of the argument with Kevin regarding 2 Thess. 1:7- 8. Since Kevin has been banned, I won't take any unfair advantage by adding anything. The reader may judge for herself whether Kevin succeeds in his attempt to use this verse to contradict "invincible ignorance". Kevin says (selected from numerous posts):

What rules for salvation are you claiming that are set down by men??? Jesus already stated what would happen when He returns, He WILL TAKE VENGEANCE ON ALL WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD and ON THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. (2 Thes 1:8). Since God CANNOT LIE, we can be assured that is EXACTLY what will take place when Jesus returns. If you deny these words, then you are guilty of calling God a liar.

Unless one obeys the gospel, which is God's power to salvation (Romans 1:16), they WILL be on the receiving end of the wrath of God. (See 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).

If the gospel is God's power to salvation (and it is), then those who do NOT obey the gospel will be lost (See 2 Thes. 1:7-9).

God COMMANDS obedience to the gospel. (2 Thes 1:7-9) ...

There is NO EXCUSE for ignorance, If ignorance were an excuse, we do men a disservice by preaching to them. God says that He WILL TAKE VENGEANCE ON ALL WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD and ON THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. (2 Thes 1:8). Since God CANNOT LIE, we can be assured that is EXACTLY what will take place when Jesus returns.

God said in 2 Thess 1:8-9 that Jesus will return, "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

My response:

Context, context, context! Notice that the whole passage refers to people who are persecuting the Thessalonian Christians! Randir's indian on the other hand has never met a Christian in his life. (of course, if a missionary does show up on the island, and ends up getting treated as a high-protein snack,... :-)

Kevin responds:

Yes, this does refer to people who are persecuting the Thessalonian Christians however [Paul was reminding them of what Jesus said in Romans 12:19-21], please notice WHEN the wrath of God will be revealed. Was it during their time on earth? Not at all!!! For if the angels have come with Jesus, then you are guilty of saying that the resurrection is already past and are no better than Hymenaeus and Philetus who said the resurrection was already past. (2 Tim 2:17-18). Who can believe it???

I respond:

eh? When was I (or anyone else) saying anything about the timing of the resurrection? My argument was solely this: the passage cannot be used as a proof-text to show that randir's Indian is bound for hell.

Kevin's reply (and let's leave him with the last word)

Your point is wrong in that first you stated that the Thessalonian Christians were being persecuted and you did NOT state when God would return in judgment on those who were guilty of doing the persecution. I merely stated that God would come in judgment on these persecutors when Jesus returned on judgment day. You did NOT answer this question.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 08, 2003.

The previous post with typos corrected. (Moderator, please delete my previous post, sorry about that). Here is a summary of my exchange with Kevin regarding Eph 2:11-12. As in the previous post, I will not add anything. Again the reader may decide for herself if this text contradicts "invincible ignorance". Kevin says:

Go back and re-read the First part of Rom 2:12 which states, "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law" and compare this with Eph 2:11-12.

I respond:

Kevin's point is that randir's indians are like the pre-conversion Ephesians in this verse, "without hope". If they never get to encounter a missionary, too bad. I want to point out that the word "hope" can be read in at least two ways. One is hope in an objective sense as in "There is no hope of a camel passing through the eye of a needle". The other is hope in a subjective sense as in "A student doesn't have much hope that he will pass a test (but actually may have done pretty well)." I contend that the subjective sense is what St. Paul means here. My reason is simple. If the Ephesians were "without hope" before in an objective sense, then why are they Christians now? There is an obvious contradiction here. (Of course, somebody who knows Greek can accuse or perhaps excuse me based on the original Greek text.) Therefore I conclude that St. Paul is talking here about the state of the unconverted Ephesians' minds (ignorance), not the state of God's mind (judgement). There is no contradiction with Romans 2:12ff.

Kevin's reply:

No, unfortunately "hope" CANNOT be read two ways as you so state. God plainly stated that before Christ came they "the Ephesians" were "without Hope". When Christ came, they had the opportunity to be saved. This talk of "objective" and "subjective" sense is nothing but pure nonsense. ...

Then he makes another blunder when he states, "The other is hope in a subjective sense as in "A student doesn't have much hope that he will pass a test (but actually may have done pretty well)." This student still has hope and when he looks at the results of the test, it is NO LONGER HOPE now is it? This is nothing but pure speculation on his part to try to take away the clear meaning of these verses of scripture. The apostle Paul clearly stated that without Christ there is NO hope of salvation, and there are NO contradictions. ...

God clearly said that without Christ, they were WITHOUT HOPE. Their ignorance DID not make them safe from God’s wrath.

My response was to post the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of hope which is:

Main Entry: hope
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 archaic : TRUST, RELIANCE
2 a : desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment { came in hopes of seeing you }; also : expectation of fulfillment or success {no hope of a cure} b : someone or something on which hopes are centered {our only hope for victory} c : something hoped for

Then I argue:

Well see the Webster dictionary definitions posted above. Both my meanings and a couple more. If they previously had no hope in an absolute sense, as in the mind of God, then they still would have no hope even after Christ. The meaning of the word that makes more sense therefore is hope in the sense of an expectation in their own minds. I could be wrong. The original Greek should be checked.

Eugene comments (excerpts):

Kevin is right and yet he's totally wrong in saying ''No hope'' exists for the pagan.

Even in the rare and extraordinary way by which the invincibly ignorant pagan may come to salvation, it is through Jesus Christ only that he is saved.

Kevin responds to my last post:

This is just pure nonsense. Who said this passage has anything to do with the "mind of God"? You are really stretching and twisting to try to prove your point. It is the "Ephesians" who were without "hope", this has NOTHING to do with the "mind of God". ...

I respond:

Ignoring the ad hominem comments, the last sentence of Kevin's quoted above is exactly my point. The passage has nothing to do with the "mind of God" rather it is about the minds of the Ephesians.

Let's look at the Greek. The Greek word can be romanized as "elpis" which (according to the lexicon at www.greekbible.com) has a subjective meaning, in terms of the expectation in people's minds. Here is what the lexicon has to say:

elpiV,n {el-pece'}
1) expectation of evil, fear 2) expectation of good, hope 2a) in the Christian sense 2a1) joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation 3) on hope, in hope, having hope 3a) the author of hope, or he who is its foundation 3b) the thing hoped for

The meaning that I argue for in this text is 2) specifically 2a1) and I hope Kevin agrees. Note that it refers to a state of mind (words like "joyful" and "confident" do not qualify an abstract probability).

Kevin responds (and let's leave him with the last word)

Stephen once again spouts nonsense in his reply which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the text in Ephesians is remotely talking about. He continues to quibble about the word "hope", but yet the passage PLAINLY states that without Christ, they had NO hope. There is NO salvation for those who are not "in Christ". (See Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:26-27). How can those who are not "in Christ", have any hope of salvation, if they have NOT been taught the gospel which is God's power to save? (See Rom 1:16). God is NO respector of persons, the Gentiles are saved in the SAME WAY as the Jews. (See Acts 2:39).

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 08, 2003.

Please don't flatter a blasphemer, Stephen, with your repeated attempts to parse the meaning of words. He expects you to do that. He's banned from our forum. He had his chance to debate honestly and with good will. Forget your plausible or implausible argument and pray for those who have no faith. Pray for us as well; that we never fail in our holy faith. God will settle all accounts sooner than all of us think.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 08, 2003.

For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone. (Imitation of Christ)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 10, 2003.

Lumen Gentium article 16 (cited by CCC 847) cites this passage from the Summa in support of invincible ignorance.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 13, 2003.

I don't think that's at all support for invicible ignorance, Stephen. I believe you are mean to point out the Reply to Objection #1, Right? The key word there is potentially...

Reply to Objection 1. Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things--first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.

In order for invincible ignorance to be seen as sufficiently conducive for salvation, you would have to line out the word potentially in that passage, and re-render it as an actualization.

It seems clear enough that Thomas means that all are potentially saved, in that Christ's Blood was sufficient to cover all. That's not the same as to say that it will actually effect salvation for all; just, potentially.

See the reply to Objection #3:

"The holy Fathers made use of the legal sacraments, not as realities, but as images and shadows of what was to come."

...talking about the Old Testament fathers having a shadow of what was to come (more Platonic in tone here imho).

What was to come? Realities. The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are Realities, not likenesses. In Plato's cave analogy, they are the "real forms" that are producing the shadows, and not the shadows themselves. This places a hardcore necessity into the nature of the Sacraments.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

When it comes to Lumen Gentium and the CCC, this is one of those “let those who have ears to hear, hear” deals imho.

Check out the New Catechism, quoted upthread:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 847: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

There’s a healthy ambiguity in there… it’s this: are the ignorant people in question dead yet or still alive, as referenced?

One can look at this section two ways:

Way #1: If “those guys” in question aren’t dead yet, then it’s true that ”those too may achieve eternal salvation".

In which case, absolutely, this is a true statement. There is hope.

But if it says anywhere that this can happen after they’re dead, then it immediately runs counter to a whole Ark-load of magisterial teachings, ordinary and supreme, as well as the understanding of the Doctors of the Church, the Saints and you-name-it.

But CCC Article 847 in no way mentions whether the subjects in question are dead yet, so it passes on ambiguity.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Dear Emerald,

There is nothing ambiguous about the teaching of the Church you referenced.

"seeking God with a sincere heart" and , "trying in their actions to do his will" are obviously actions of the living. The expression "may achieve eternal salvation" obviously refers to something which has not yet occured. For the dead, the question of salvation has been settled once and for all eternity. Therefore, again, "may achieve" is certainly a reference to the living.

Therefore, the clear meaning of the CCC passage is:

"Those living persons who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - and who continue to do so for the remainder of their earthly lives - regardless of whether they ever actually discover the fullness of truth in God's Church - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

Anything less would constitute a direct attack on the mercy and justice of God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Well I was actually searching to see if my claimed proof-text (Rom 2:12ff) has any official support, but no it doesn't seem to. The Catechism cites Lumen Gentium 16 which in turn cites the Summa (and an official letter to the archbishop of Boston). The CCC also cites Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3866-3872. Any idea what this says?

Emerald, how about #1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

Or from the Catechism of St. Pius X (section on baptism)

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 13, 2003.

"Anything less would constitute a direct attack on the mercy and justice of God."

Only if you look at it from one perspective, which is the human perspective which does not see all that God sees, or has access to all the means that God has, or sees all purposes that God sees. I understand perfectly why you say that Paul and don't fault you in any way, but there's another perspective which must be considered here, about the Mercy of God and His justice.

On the contrary, I would put forth this idea: that in any way, shape or form, to assume that there actually is a case of a good-willed man who by some reason of some nature circumstance alone can't hear the Word and receive the Sacraments, is what is a real and concrete failure believe in or yeild to the incredible Mercy of God.

In other words, I don't think such cases actually exist. You can construct the worst of all cases... put the archetypical ignorant native on a desert island; wait... put him in a vault on a desert island and pour concrete over him. You get the idea: no matter what you do, God is an incredible God. I firmly believe that it is no small matter for Him to overcome ANY obstacle, no matter how impossible it may seem in our limited-ness, to get the man of good will what the man needs for salvation.

All the while without sidestepping His own ordained means! "Subsistence Theory" does not cut it.

Skirting the requirements are a no-no, as these were commanded by God without qualification and are to be upheld as Truth despite any problems which they may pose, in understanding, to our feeble minds.

In that sense, the proper answer to the question is "I have no idea. All I know is that the Sacraments are required for Salvation, and they can only be found in the Catholic Church, and that is what I must believe."

This is not to say that I don't understand the problem it poses to the human mind, because I do. It is beyond our capabilities, and we could drive ourselves crazy trying to work through each case.

Here's the serious problem, though, when you employ what's known as Theological Speculation in order to satisfy the human intellect: before you know it, you have explanations that seem plausible and comfort the mind, but unwittingly, you find later that you have actually, ever so subtlely, violated the tenets Christ has established concerning the ways and means of salvation.

All the while people are doing this, I do believe they have good intentions. I believe that they sincerely do NOT intend to violate Christ's principles. But the demon sees an opportunity in this, imho, to water down our concepts of immutable Catholic realities and implant more whimsical ideas in the Faithful's heads concerning the things that go to make up the path to Heaven and the path the Hell.

There are lots of theories and musings about how the Church came to be in the marginalized and ignored, scandel-ridden and divide position it is in in our age... that is, if you can get them to believe that that is our actual condition at all in the first place. Some simply deny that it's the case. I believe that the departure from the Catholic Church as being the only way of salvation is at the root of it, with the caveat that there's this even deeper cause which is more to the point still: failure of the members to pray and do penance. Not just now, but all along, throughout the ages. Basic common stuff of human weakness and failure, which we all are party to, but nonetheless, actions and omission of action will have it's consequences.

But before rambling off like I did above, I should have stated what everyone already knows, but we all often forget:

We were damned by default, until Christ came to save us and until we partook in it and further, until we persevere in it to the end. We merit nothing of our good works without Christ. EVEN... even if God never saw fit to save us, it would not have made Him an evil God! Nothing about our condition implies an inherent right to salvation.

Typically, see, we always think somebody owes us something... lol! We are owed nothing, and salvation? Wow, Thank God. What a precious gift to be offered to us, which we didn't, and still don't, and will never, be worthy of.

Yet just another manifestation of the goodness and greatness of God.

So, there is that hidden false principle at work, even in the best of our intentions, which is to assume that we, or anybody, if they are good enough, should deserve to have God rescue us. We are only thankful that He ordained a way, but never, never are we to assume or demand it.

I believe in the incredible Mercy of God. I believe in St. Faustina's message, because it isn't at all about "salvation for everyone"... actually, the message itself is a re-affirmation of the Church as the only way of salvation. "For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and on the whole world". In other words, Please Father, so that Your Son's efforts are not in vain have mercy on us". Because unless people come to Him and His Sacrament on our holy altars, in our Catholic Church, nothing can be done for them.

We must hold the line on doctrine; we must not allow our own private interpretations of what the Sacraments are, and how they are effecacious, allow us to nullify their necessity or demean their essence.

GOD WILL PREVAIL over every earthly obstacle to give the man of good will His Sacraments that are the way back to Him. I believe in His Mercy, and the Catholic Church's existence is the absolute, most manifest proof of God's Mercy that ever was or ever will be; right here, right now.

In reality, I'm with you Paul. I believe there's enough Mercy to go around; I just think that unfortunately most are rejecting that Mercy.

Stephen:

"Emerald, how about #1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16)."

Yes it does say that. But this is not what the Church has always taught. By saying that do I separate myself from Christ's Church? No... because we are not promised infallibility from our catechisms. This is an oft-implied assumption, but, this is simply not the case or is it Church teaching. Catechisms do not possess the character of infallibility.

Does this mean that blowing off a catechism with the wave of a hand is an acceptable way to conduct ourselves as Catholic laity? No way. Did Pope John Paul promulgate this? Yes he did. Does he believe this? From everything I have looked into, I would say, yes he does, and in fact much more. Does this make him NOT my Holy Father, my Pontiff? No. Does this nullify the charge that I must submit to the Roman Pontiff? No it does not.

However, I am duty bound to hold to the Deposit of the Faith:

"Let us hold firmly to our Catholic doctrine: one God, one faith, one baptism. To try to inquire further is sinful" Pope Pius IX (see D.1647)

The Saints had this understanding throughout the ages, about the Church being the only way of salvation... even in cases such as the catechumen who supposedly trips over a log and dies, so to speak, 14 minutes before his Baptism. Check this out:

"Therefore, the three witnesses in Baptism [note: he didn't say "three baptisms"!] are one: The water, the blood, and the Spirit; for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: "For except one be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom" (John 3:5) Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he also signs himself; but unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [that last bold on the Holy Ghost was a little overkill; sorry!], he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace."

--St. Ambrose, Doctor of the Church.

St. Ambrose rules. Everyone should read his prayer before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.

God, in His mercy, just ain't going to let these things happen!!! He won't! He will so go far out of His way to assist the man of good will. This IS the Mercy of God, but, we aren't always privy to it or the way it works. It is hidden to us. We just have to trust that it happens... we must believe it without seeing it, or seeing how it works.

But we must never violate the principles of the Faith!

Ah, that's it for now. There's a ton of Church documentation on this; if you want more, I've got it here, but everyone's eyes are no doubt rolling back in their heads right now, so I'll cut it short.

Geez, I'm putting myself to sleep.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Here, I found something from St. Bellarmine's Sacrament of Baptism that says it better than I ever could. He, in turn, quotes a previous Saint of the Church:

"St. Augustine says that the eternal damnation of those outside the Church and of the unbaptised might seem to be unjust; but this is only because the ways of the justice of God are hidden to us in this life, but when they will be revealed to us in the Beatific Vision, we shall see how very just is the damnation of the unbaptised."

So there you have. I apologize for being a pain in the ---, but I do believe that holding to the doctrines of the Faith are our only hope in these difficult and confusing times.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Emmy:
It's hard to single out one avenue of response to the Niagara of words you post when you put yourself to sleep this way. I've tried, however. Here's one segment of your treatise:

''We must hold the line on doctrine; we must not allow our own private interpretations of what the Sacraments are, and how they are effecacious, allow us to nullify their necessity or demean their essence.''

You say it as if all is quite compactly given me & you; just ''fit this mold'' and don't speculate on the TRUTH.

From strictly a doctrinal angle, you've ignored ONE revealing factor; the Holy Spirit. Within the kingdom of heaven here on earth, theologians and saints contemplate His mysteries. He brings them to the truth-- often despite themselves. Jesus clearly stated, ''When He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will teach you all the truth,'' also, ''and the things that are to come He will declare to you.'' (John 16:13-14)

So much so that if you presume to say where the power of the Holy Spirit ends and pure speculation begins, we must caution you, Emerald. Presumption against ''invincible ignorance''/Baptism of Desire, and the infinite mercy of Our Saviour is merely your own taste. O ye of little faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 13, 2003.

Emerald,

How about finding out what we have in common *I* don't know who's going to be saved, either in or out of the church. I don't think *you* do either. Is that a fair statement of common ground to start with?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 13, 2003.

As I have warned, many times (to deaf ears) ...

Pauvre émeraude et ses paroles diaboliques.

Alas, he of little faith ... and here to make us protestants.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 13, 2003.

Absolutely.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

omg... lol!

That was meant for you, Frank.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

"Sanguinarius homo indomitus est."

Ego numquam pronuciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Ou en français, si vous préférez...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

"sit stillabit sed amanto hiscat"

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Here's the letter to the archbishop of Boston cited by Lumen Gentium:

--------------------------

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, AUG. 8, 1949.

...

3869 Concerning the aids given for salvation, which are ordered to the ultimate end by divine institution alone and not by any intrinsic necessity, God in his infinite mercy willed that in certain circumstances the effects necessary for salvation may be obtained when these aids are clung to only by a wish or desire. In the most holy Council of Trent, we see this enunciated in clear words first concerning the sacrament of regeneration and then concerning the sacrament of penance.

3870 The same can be said about the Church, since she herself is a general aid to salvation. Thus for a person to obtain eternal salvation, it is not always demanded that he really be incorporated as a member of the Church, but it is at least required that he adhere to it by wish and desire. It is proper that this wish not always be explicit, as happens with catechumens; on the contrary, when man labors under invincible ignorance God also accepts an implicit wish, called by this name because it is found in that good disposition of the soul by which man wishes to conform his will to the will of God.

3871 These things are clearly taught in Pius XII's encyclical letter on the mystical body of Jesus Christ. In this letter the Supreme Pontiff distinguishes clearly between those who are really incorporated as members of the Church, and those who adhere to the Church by wish alone. . . . "Among the members of the Church those alone must be numbered who have received the washing of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have neither separated themselves miserably from the structure of the Body nor, on account of a most serious crime, have been severed from it by legitimate authority." Near the end of the same encyclical letter, inviting to unity with a most loving spirit those who do not belong to the structure of the Catholic Church, he remembers those "who by an ignorant desire or wish may be ordered towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer," whom he excludes not at all from eternal salvation, although he asserts that in such a state they are tossed about from every side, "and cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation . . . for they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and aids, of which one may have the benefit only in the Catholic Church."

3872 With these wise words he reproves as much those who exclude from eternal salvation all who adhere to the Church by an implicit wish only, as those who falsely claim that men can be saved in every religion equally. Nor must it be thought that any wish whatsoever of entering the Church suffices for the salvation of man. "For it is required that a wish, by which someone is ordered toward the Church, be formed in perfect charity; nor can an implicit wish have effect unless a man has supernatural faith.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 15, 2003.

Uh huh.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.

Obviously Stephen, what I'm going to ask is regarding the authoritative nature of this document. In other words, is it of such a nature as to trump previous and repeated binding solemn definitions of the Church as well as the understanding of the Saints and Doctors of the Church? This one document?

What you will find when pursuing this issue is that the opponents of extra ecclesiam nulla salus will jump up and down and say "aha! see?" at the most out of the way, remote evidence to make their case. That's because that's all they've got to work with.

A little background on the 1949 characters involved is helpful; what I did a while back was to seek out one of the surviving ones and meet him personally over a brunch.

Cardinal Cushing, who was the driving force against this dogma of the Catholic Church, boasted near the end of his life that he had never, in his lifetime, made a single convert to the Catholic Faith. He said in a speech once, something to the effect of "no salvation outside the Church? Nonsense!". He was a great fundraiser, though, and had gobs of money and connections.

He also put forward such luminaries as Paul Shanley, who was arrested by the police about 25 minutes from where I live for past molestations elsewhere; this is a case that I obviously mention only because it's old news and the whole world knows about it.

On the other hand, Feeney was "reconciled" to the Church without ever having recanted his position. Go figure...

If you are really a heretic, you have to recant your position before reconciliation. He didn't, and after his reconciliation so-called, he went on about his same business and no one did a thing. They couldn't.

It's all contained in two simple and opposing concepts: City of God, and City of Man. By their fruits you shall know them.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.

Emerald: You may find this interesting.

3 errors of the Feeneyites

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 16, 2003.

Don't take any offense, Stephen, seriously I don't mean any at all... my situation is that a while back I got into this issue and literally burned it into an oblivion over a period of time to attempt to come to an understanding of it, and there's probably not one stone I haven't turned over. I know that's a bold statement and probably and exaggeration, but it would be at least pretty similiar to the truth.

Turns out that there was so much to learn besides the answer to the question itself; in that sense, the pursuit has paid good dividends.

Now I'm on the hook, though, so to speak, in that there's no way I myself can claim invincible ignorance status. That means something grave... if you know what I mean. In other words, finding the trail is one thing. Walking it is another. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Jmj

Although you are 100%, absolutely correct, Stephen, I advise you to drop the subject and bow out gracefully. After observing your misguided, pride-filled foe ("Emerald," better called "Green-glass") take part in the EXACT same kind of debate at least ten times in the past year, I can assure you (1) that you are wasting your time and (2) that you are giving the poor fool an unmerited "stage" on which to perform -- to the further detriment of his soul and of impressionable lurkers.

Stephen, you are dealing with a convinced heretic who, for a year, has paid no attention at all to various (orthodox Catholic) "intellectual betters" of his -- so unable is to admit that he is having a humongour brain-cramp.
He is now in so deep that he would not admit to being wrong even if all 260+ popes appeared to him and told him he was wrong.
Even if Jesus himself appeared to this "California Calvin" to correct him, the latter would not believe Him, but would send Him back to Heaven to check with the Holy Spirit on the accuracy of His statement.

Stephen, he is here doing the devil's work by trying to fool people, because he truly believes that all who lived as non-Catholics and died without formally converting are roasting in hell. He sees that what you have quoted above (1949 Holy Office, approved by Pius XII) totally discredits his position of the past year, but he actually has the nerve to doubt "the authoritative nature of this document." He comes right out and says that he, and not Pius XII, knows better the meaning of Catholic dogma! That's Chalifornia Chutzpah for you! He has more pride than even satan fooled Adam into having. He would have you believe that what you quoted contradicts "repeated binding solemn definitions of the Church as well as the understanding of the Saints and Doctors of the Church." In reality (as you and I know so well), what you quoted is one of a string of Vatican statements that have helped the Catholic people correctly to understand those "binding solemn definitions of the Church," lest they be contorted, abused, and wrongly taught by heretics like "Emerald."

God bless you.
John
PS: Please continue with your own research into the Feeney matter. You cannot get accurate information on that subject from "Emerald," either. He has picked up unreliable rubbish from a senile Feeneyite, an impossibly biased old coot -- someone who filled the Greenglass ears with just the kind of nonsense he wanted to hear (rather than with documented, objective facts).

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 16, 2003.

"Stephen, you are dealing with a convinced heretic who, for a year, has paid no attention at all to various (orthodox Catholic) "intellectual betters" of his -- so unable is to admit that he is having a humongour brain-cramp."

See, there it is again, right there... that crazy idea that we are saved by our intellects; by our wits. Nope.

We are saved by the Blood of Christ.

Strangest thing is, that can only be found in the Catholic Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Emerald,
John hasn't ''again, right there...''--advanced the idea (you call him crazy?) ''that we are saved by our intellects; by our wits.''-- And you finish with the Emerald City pontification: ''Nope.''

As if you, the obviously ruptured Catholic, are defending the truth. You seem to TOUT the ''Blood of Christ'', as if you'd learned about it just today!

Stephen's post was sufficient to help us understand the truth. You kick against the goad; a labot that earns you nothing. Why??? I think it's because YOU are the one infatuated by your own intellect.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 16, 2003.

Thanks, Gene. I was so pleased at the way you opened your message, because I was flabbergasted at how my meaning had not sunk into my opponent.

You're right I said nothing about "intellect" having anything to do with being saved. All I tried to say was that, out of humility, "Emerald" should long ago have yielded to any of the hundreds of people of intelligence superior to his [and I don't include myself] who have proved that he is wrong here at forum and in ecclesiastical documents. Heck -- the mere fact that he badly misunderstood me on such a simple point ought to jolt him into the realization that he is even less likely to understand the Church's complex doctrines without all the help he can get (e.g., the 1949 Holy Office, Vatican II documents, the Catechism, etc.).

Stephen is the latest in the group of brilliant orthodox Catholics whom Emerald chooses to battle uselessly. It's sad that the latter has let his mind and energies go to waste.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 16, 2003.

I stand by what I said. You just did it again:

"All I tried to say was that, out of humility, "Emerald" should long ago have yielded to any of the hundreds of people of intelligence superior to his [and I don't include myself] who have proved that he is wrong here at forum and in ecclesiastical documents."

Finding, and submitting to, Catholic Doctrine is not about excercise of intellectual potential, but more so about the will to be and to do good. Any saint's writings will tell you that pursuing a life of meditation, prayer and penance will lead to truth and holiness faster than anything the superior intellect can muster up.

John, I've watched you operate in this forum for eighteen months. You operate upon the hidden principle that goodness, or holiness, is achieved by looking around you to find the what the orthodox are saying... then, thinking those things. Walla! Catholic. Checklist Catholicism, I call it, and very much of the Old Jewish Law.

I sincerely believe that you think that if you hold to this course, you will be saved; that God will say to you, "well done, my good and faithful servant", for your constant minor adjustments and fining- tuning of the ideas and things which you have collected in your basket of "all things orthodox".

I question certain items you've got in your basket. I pick a few topics out and show you how I don't think your orthodox at in, in relation to real and true orthodoxy.

Here's how it comes out in practice: I sincerely believe that you think that if questionable posters are allowed to leave their textual efforts here, that lurkers will be misled and damned. I think you are convinced it is up to you to prevent this from happening.

See, most people in here think real intelligence is about knowing facts. What's worse, they think real intelligence has something to do with the Faith and salvation. It doesn't.

I want to point out something to you, and I want you to open up your ears just long enough, ever so long enough to realize the real situation:

You call me a heretic and a schismatic, stupid and a friend of Satan for the following:

1. I say there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. I say believe that the Tridentine Rite of the Mass is better, and

3. Disagree with people that certain things promulgated by the post conciliar Church demand our assent.

What are you so afraid of?

You know what, I think you get so frustrated with me because you can't really answer these burning questions. I say, in turn, that they can't be answered your way.

My question... my questions... my plea, desire, comfort would be: when are you going to pursuade people to a holy life?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Well, I'll take you guys' advice and bow out of what seems to be becoming a flame war.

I should point out however that I'm very far from being an expert on this issue, and have only posted texts cited by the Catechism or Lumen Gentium. In fact, you can tell from my first post that I was an unconscious Feeneyite until I was corrected by Paul on this thread.

I also want to back off from my interpretation of Rom 2:12ff. earlier in this thread. I checked with the New Jerome Bible Commentary and Fr. Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. They both disagree with me.

But here's something from the Fatima prayer to think about. "... lead all souls to Heaven ...". It seems that Our Lady is not a Feeneyite.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 16, 2003.

"Well, I'll take you guys' advice and bow out of what seems to be becoming a flame war."

No, don't worry... there's going to be no flame war because I won't have it. I believe that's the most pointed thing I've said to John in 18 months. If that's not the case, then I'm sure someone will prove me otherwise.

Stephen, it is interesting that you mention the Mother of God, who is the archetypical ARK of salvation, as she was the first tabernacle of the Incarnation. She is referenced as the ARK, outside of which all perished.

Pick up St. Louis De Monfort's Secret of the Rosary and also his other work True Devotion to Mary.

Stephen, what is really at the root of my unending, exhaustive and completely boring regurgitation of this issue is the narrow path of salvation that the Church has always spoke of through all times in it's history.

Obtaining the Beatific Vision is no small effort for man, and the path is rocky and difficult. Many seek salvation, but few find it.

Once safely within the doors of the Catholic Church, there is much effort in staying on the narrow path. Not all who cry "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of God, but those who do His will. This includes me as well, and in no way whatsoever do I feel myself to be any safer than anyone else.

What I believe is woefully absent in the day and age in our Church is the willingness to follow that narrow path. This, in turn, is nothing new either. If you read the Saints from 300, 400, and 500 years ago, they all lamented the lukewarmness of souls in their time.

I wouldn't care if I was the last man in the world who spoke of the narrow path to salvation, and I couldn't care less if every person on the face of the earth hated my guts for it.

In all honesty, I don't care, because it's the truth, and I will go to my grave screaming it. I only hope that I go to my grave living it as well, as, that's a whole 'nuther matter if you know what I mean.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Check this out from St. Louis De Monfort's True Devotion to Mary:

In a word, we know that they shall be true disciples of Jesus Christ, walking in the footsteps of His poverty, humility, contempt for the world, charity; teaching the narrow way of God in pure truth, and not according to the maxims of the world; troubling themselves about nothing; not accepting persons,; sparing, fearing and listening to no mortal, however influential he may be. They shall have in their mouths the two-edged sword of the Word of God. They shall carry on their shoulders the bloody standard of the Cross, the Crucifix in their right hand and the Rosary in their left, the sacred Names of Jesus and Mary in their hearts, and the modesty and mortification of jesus Christ in their own behavior."

...and by God, Stephen, and by His Holy Mother, I'm going to be one of those people. I don't care if everyone hates me for it. I don't care if people think I'm insane. In fact, let them think me a hypocrite. Honest to God, I don't care. I couldn't care less, and I'm not going to let it stop me.

I'm moving forward. I Stephen, I suggest you do the same.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

For the interested, both books are online. Here are the links.

True devotion to Mary

The secret of the rosary

Ok, no more posts from me on this thread.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 17, 2003.

Read those cover to cover, and follow them with all your might, and I would never, ever bother you again with the phrase...

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

...because you will already have it in the depths of your being.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

Dear Emerald,
We understand your conern. We share your concern.

Some of us do not share your alarm. Your proclamations are too staged. God isn't as desperate as YOU; or as you want us to be. We are members of His Holy Church no matter what you argue. I'm a servant of the Most High; a servant of Jesus Christ here on our forum. You don't appreciate that. You make yourself out to be the best Catholic.

But nothing you're saying today makes you better --or much worse. The matters that bother you are external. They trouble you because of your sensibility. You don't give any merit to love; love for Our Lord makes us His own; not ritual perfection.

Why are you taking the route of the Pharisees? If you read the gospels you've seen their elitism and their craving for prestige. Is this what you crave? Don't you love Jesus Christ, as we do?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 17, 2003.

Paint me as you will; think what you will.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

Emerald were all insane to spend this much time on the net! Me Ive finally cleared the desk at work and its a Friday soon :-). Ive got a glass of fine Hawkes Bay NZ 2000 merlot, a nice cigar, even the Smiths in the backround..."I dont dream about anyone..except myself"!......hey its hardly hedonism but dont you dare go all puritan on me will you!

Are you intrested in doing a book swap thing? Email me as Ive gone crazy over the last few months at the second hand book store.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.

"Emerald were all insane to spend this much time on the net!"

Now ain' that the truth; I'm 100% guilty. Frankly, Mr. Shankly, I'm a sickening wreck; I've got the 21st century breathing down my neck.

Merlot is hedonism? No way! Catholicism and fine wine are one, and the Puritans, they rejected both. So no worries!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

"My question... my questions... my plea, desire, comfort would be: when are you going to persuade people to a holy life?"

These were the kind of things that I and others routinely did here, before the Five Schismatic Stooges showed up and ruined the forum.
These are the kind of things that I and others will be able to do again, as soon as you have the honesty to leave us alone -- or as soon as the Moderator discerns your satanic game and sends your heretical carcass packing.

We will be aboe to begin again to "persuade people to a holy life," because the first step in the direction of leading "a holy life" is to be an orthodox Catholic. It follows that you are about as far from holiness as a person can be, because you are deeply committed to heterodoxy, extreme pride, and elitism. Your quoting saints and literature of piety is truly sacrilegious, and it is about as incongruous as Clinton quoting Mother Teresa. Those saints are spinning in their graves, knowing that they are being quoted by a heretic who rejects parts of papal teaching, an ecumenical council's documents, and the Church's official catechism.

I won't respond to the crock of manure that is your message to me -- the same litany of crud that you have excreted (and that many of us have refuted) so many times before -- because, as I recently said elsewhere, I don't recognize your right to be posting on this forum.

May God forgive you and turn on his light in your jet-black mind and soul.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.

Fingers in ears.

You have nothing to offer me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

Please make that your last post about Emerald or in answer to his own posts, John Gecik.

We may not like the kind of things he posts. That is of lesser importance than maintaining civility. You now seem willing to carry on a vendetta with him, and it's getting very crude. Stop, please, for the love of God.

Emerald; what John's resorting to is ungentlemanly, but you've aggravated him as well as others here too long. Won't you give God the honor of refraining now; since all your views are well- known? You add nothing to the subjects here with the redundant display of your pseudo-orthodoxy. John is ham-fisted and you are block-headed. Both of you should leave one another alone, for the good of this forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 17, 2003.

Yep, Eugene is right! You guys need to pick up your marbles and go home.

Love you both,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 17, 2003.

Alright; I'll do that for you Gail.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

"but you've aggravated him as well as others here too long."

I cannot deny it. My apologies everyone; I'll try harder.

But extra eccl... just kidding! Just kidding. I break my own rules when I use the ways of men instead of yeilding to the ways of God.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

There is something about you very appealing, Emmy. Very good.

Pray; don't disparage where you can encourage. God most certainly loves you. Keep thinking of Christ's holy words; -- You will be known as my own in the way you love one another.

His new commandment to His Church: ''Love one another as I have loved you.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 18, 2003.

Yeah, whatever Gene. See ya later.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 18, 2003.

Oh, what the hell... just one more for the road, so to speak:

"Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practice black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if - and mark well what I say - if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins."

St. Louis De Monfort, Secret of the Rosary

Ha.

Alright, later.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 18, 2003.

So emerald, is that an infallible statement or just his opinion? ;-)

See you're still at it, good for you! Keep it up, I think that people here just haven't figured out your side of things yet.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 18, 2003.

"There is something about you very appealing, Emmy." [E.C.]

That's exactly what Eve said about "you-know-who."
And that's exactly why I will never stop fighting to keep the forum safe from people whose "missionary work" here is very pleasing to "you-know-who."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 18, 2003.

John, My friend,
you will never stop fighting period. We can find a soul appealing without respect to the error. I just haven't given up. I am not one to consign another person to the abyss.

Now, John; why did you single out the words which incite you to anger? What about the other matters I touch on with Emerald? They aren't important? Aren't Christians known by their love for one another?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 18, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Gene.

You have some mistaken impressions of me and my attitude toward "Emerald." Let me explain by responding to your comments.

"We can find a soul appealing without respect to the error."

I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that we have to allow every "appealing" person into our homes (including this "home-away-from-home" forum).
We might find Fidel Castro "appealing" at times. We might have found John Calvin "appealing" at times. How many people still find Slick Willy "appealing"? But I'll be darned if I'd let those guys into my house day after day after day -- nor would I let them have an interminable platform at a Catholic forum. Their behaviors are bad, their ideas are wrong -- and associating with them would be perilous.

And that is why I am against letting "Appealing Emerald" continue here. You see, we can't let the "nice guy" in him ... or the "cute comedian" in him ... or the "fair debater" in him distract us from the wrong he has done and the dangers that his false religious beliefs pose. I believe that each person who defends his presence here is falling for at least one of these "appealing" aspects of his personality. [That includes, alas, the Moderator, who thinks he can debate "Emerald" into conversion. He must be unaware of the fact that not even C. Butler could sway "Emerald" one millimeter from his heresy.] I recognize each of those "appealing" aspects of his personality, but I won't let myself be distracted by any of them, because I keep foremost in mind the dangers that accompany them.

In my opinion, "Emerald" has had at least triple the amount of time that he deserved to make his case. He has failed and always will fail on the grand scale with Catholics, because error can never defeat truth. It's far past time for this conflict to end. It's time for him to move on to other pastures, if he cannot reassume the full gift of Catholic faith.

"I just haven't given up. I am not one to consign another person to the abyss."

Gene, you wrongly imply that I have "given up ... [and] consign[ed him] to the abyss." I have not done either of those things in my private prayers.
I'm perfectly well aware that he can come around -- and, of course, I want him to do so. I remember what a decent chap he was when he was still Catholic. But there will be no chance for him to come around, until after he has been away from here for a while. It should be obvious that his lingering here is not having the slightest positive effect on him. The longer he stays, the worse he gets (i.e., the more deeply set in his errors). This place gives him a "bunker mentality." Here, he is having far more than the slightest negative effect on people by his presence (upsetting some people who post messages and, more importantly, fooling some lurkers, like "Robert P").

"Pray; don't disparage where you can encourage. ... You will be known as my own in the way you love one another."

There already has been a long period for prayer and encouragement. That showed "love." Then there came a time when tough criticism was warranted and had to be used, in imitation of Jesus, St. John the Baptist, St. Paul, and others. That too showed "love" -- caring enough to correct him. Now the time has come for the equivalent of "excommunication." That too will show "love" -- "tough love." How we express our "love" for "one another" doesn't always take on the same guise. Prayer for conversion can continue, even after excommunication.

Well, Gene, I have to admit that you said one thing that was correct: "John, my friend, you will never stop fighting period."

It's not that I want to fight, because I actually hate the effect it has on my stomach and the time that is lost doing it. But look at what I told you that made you react with those words: "I will never stop fighting to keep the forum safe from people whose 'missionary work' here is very pleasing to 'you-know-who.'"
Since the forum no longer seems to have even one day (much less consecutive days, as it used to) without "missionaries" trying to undermine our faith, I guess that you are right to say that I "will never stop fighting, period."

God bless you.
John
PS: I don't know to what you are referring when you say this, Gene: "Now, John; why did you single out the words which incite you to anger?" You didn't "incite [me] to anger." Please don't misinterpret my disagreement for "anger."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 19, 2003.

John,
I'm glad you've responded at your very best, in the spirit of a good Catholic. Not because you're informing me personally. You & I have been around the horn here; and nothing you said surprises me. I hope Emerald will read you and see the problems his caprices raise for you.

I disagree with your conclusion, that Emerald has a n obligation to stop posting his opinions. Or to leave.

You have plenty of liberty to oppose his views, John. Nobody will place limits on you. Least of all me.

My last admonition was, let's not lash out furiously. I wasn't siding against you; or endorsing Emmy's false premises. I'm only cautiioning YOU not to vent so much spleen.

I'm always cautious of one fact, whenever opposition arises in these threads. The person I'm antagonizing may well be in a true state of grace, whatever my own impression might be. God has the best overall perspective, John. --When we leave ourselves no room for doubt, we may be crushing another soul. Remember that quite a few saints were castigated as if they were sinners. (Emerald may not be a saint, but he says what he says without malice. You've more than once accused him of malice, so-- Think of God's compassion for sinners; and admit this. Emerald and you and me are sinners. His mercy is not for me only. It's for us we should pray constantly --OUR Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 19, 2003.

You guys done?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 19, 2003.