A Reply To Your Sig

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 8 2004, 09:26 AM'] One Simple Defence would be.

1 Catholic Church
50000 Protestant Churches
3 Million Non-Denominational Ministries
2000 Sects and Cults.

[/quote]
One simple antithesis would be:

[quote name='Me']However, condemnation of false opinions is less effective when the Church is split up into 30000+ different factions, who cant agree with each other, let alone stand as one and condemn error.[/quote] [quote name='John Roberson']I'll assume that you're taking this number from a misreading of Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia. The claim is taken from the fact that he identifies there as probably having been around 22,190 denominations by 1985, then projecting into the future on the assume of a predictable growth rate.. What you're failing to realize is that he only identifies 8196 of these as Protestant denominations, so Protestants cannot be your whipping boy! Indeed, he identifies there as being 223 Roman Catholic denominations at that time!! He says that there are 21 Protestant traditions and 16 Roman Catholic traditions (among others, obviously, totalling ~92). If we turn to the only real proponents of Sola Scriptura, which is many evangelicals, we note that Barrett treats them as one group, while breaking down Roman Catholics into four major groups![/quote]

I dealt with this issue in [url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62028&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Chicago+Statement"]This Debate[/url] with John Roberson, aka mustbenothing. I got destroyed.

Have fun.

Edited August 8, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 03:20 PM'] One simple antithesis would be:



I dealt with this issue in [url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62028&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Chicago+Statement"]This Debate[/url] with John Roberson, aka mustbenothing. I got destroyed.

Have fun. [/quote]
You got destroyed because your study was young and were not ready for debate.


I'm still waiting for your answers to the posts above.



There are over 34,000 faiths that claim to be Christian, and you must have missed the point that it doesn't matter if there were just 2 faiths claiming to be Christian because there is only One True Church.


I'm still waiting for your answers to the posts above.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 8 2004, 01:44 PM'] There are over 34,000 faiths that claim to be Christian, and you must have missed the point that it doesn't matter if there were just 2 faiths claiming to be Christian because there is only One True Church. [/quote]
But the thing is, you're assuming a Roman Catholic viewpoint of the Church, rather than a Protestant one. In Protestantism, the Church is all those who are regenerated in Christ and hold faithfully to the Faith once delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists.

[dairygirl4u2c]

You guys should stop debating philosophies. Church and truth itself may or may not be physical. Truth can exist even if every one disagrees to what it is. Church can be the Catholic Church or prot version.


I'm sure he could show you many different viewpoints held by various fathers of the church. That's how your challenge is presented.

So to focus, so you must be looking for contradictions taught by different bishops of rome.

If that's the case, your challenge is a little decieving and perhaps flawed. [i]Can you give us the Catechism of the Catholic Church for every year back to Christ or at least for a long time in the past?[/i] That way we can expose any contradictions if any.



Here's some that I'll be looking into at any rate.

[quote]But the most influential popes, notably Gregory the Great, followed Augustine's lead in declaring all sex, for whatever reason, a sin. More recent popes have broken with this teaching, but quietly so that they still can lay claim to an unbroken chain of authority, with few noticing that they had already severed the chain themselves.

Take the current notion of infallible papal authority on matters of morals. This was not declared until the First Vatican Council in 1870. And, many currently required beliefs, are equally recent, For example, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not decreed until 1858, contradicting the teachings of a number of earlier popes. [/quote]

There's also the salvation outside the Catholic Church and no salvation outside controversy. It could be interpreted other ways. (considering traditionalists and other things I think it indicates a contradiction but that's for later)

There's also the fact that infallibility wasn't decreed until like the 1800's. Popes didn't know they had to do this or that in order for something to be infallible. It's possibly a coverall for the contradictions held "persoanlly". I'll have to look into how much "personal" faith of popes was held by the people.

The writings of early days doesn't even look like they believed in the infallibility of the pope beyond supremacy. But that can be argued with with the "development" defense.

I suppose we'll have to settle with contradictions in consil teachings. Or individual papal statements that are ex cathedra. Though I and most here have no idea what those are. I heard though that the assumption and the immaculate conception is the only two things ever defined by a pope by himself. [i]I think for once some one here finally has to answer what is and is not infallible![/i]

These are just some ideas for people wanting to look into these issues and the challenge.

Edited August 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]One of the greatest popes of all time, John XXIII, had tried to bring the Church into the modern world. He astounded everyone by not demanding traditional papal authority to institute changes. Instead, in 1962, he called together only the second Council of bishops in Church history, asking it to clear the path to the future. Unfortunately, John died a year later and his successor, Paul VI, proved more in the typical papal mold. [/quote]

This is a little interesting. It's actually from a non perhaps even anti catholic. But the fact that this pope died says more for the Catholic Church I think.

Like the guy before JPII is a flimsy example. Maybe God just wanted the likes of JPII. (incidentally there's also conspiracy about all that.. his boy was cremated in a day or something) But does anyone else know of popes dying before going into error? I've heard of those in the past.

[Quietfire]

Actually, (here I go sticking my neck out) if I am correct that statement is wrong in the sense that JPII finished what JohnXXIII started.
John XXIII knew he was sick (from what I understand) and got the ball rolling. He knew it would need to be finished by a strong Pope after his death, although I think he was hoping to finish it himself.

Its just MOPO. I could be wrong. But I think thats the general gist of it.
If so, then that statement was most definitely written by a non-catholic.

Anyway, this is really Ironmonk's and Icthus' thread. I doubt either need our help.
But just a quick note to Icthus.

Sometimes it is better to have a greater understanding before engaging in a debate of the magnitude you encountered on that particular site.
Although I give you props for the attempt, what did it gain you? You are now somewhat lost between Catholicism and Protestantism. This cannot be were you wish to be.
Instead of argueing with Catholics, maybe you could simply ask with charity about a specific item. If you dont understand, simply ask for clarification.
Nobody here wishes you harm or pain, though you may think differently.
If you have many friends who are Protestant, instead of debating with them on a face to face one to one basis, invite them here to debate their points.

Personally, I dont debate with Protestants (face to face) because I know I am not ready. Although I listen to them, my mind is already working out a rebuttal, but lack of knowledge forbids my mouth from opening.
I know I would fall into the same trap you did.

I dont know if this helps, but again, it isnt to insult or hurt. Questions asked in curiosity and kindness get answered in kind.

Peace.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 04:07 PM'] But the thing is, you're assuming a Roman Catholic viewpoint of the Church, rather than a Protestant one. In Protestantism, the Church is all those who are regenerated in Christ and hold faithfully to the Faith once delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists. [/quote]
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject and stick to the topic of this post?


Protestant theology is irrelivant, it all came from a distortion of the Catholic Faith. It was not taught by the first Christians, therefore it is counted with those that left in Acts 20:29-30.

[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,



Since the "fathers" of the protestant faiths were all once Catholic (Luther, Knox, Calvin, etc...)... How were they faithful to what they learned from whom they learned it....? They weren't faithful at all, they distorted it.

Protestant doctrines of man didn't come to be until 1517 AD... You need to look at the bible from an Apostolic point of view.


I'm not assuming anything. See you fail to realize the facts in what is put infront of you, so you run, and try to make a circular argument...

Stick to the points given or you've proved my point.


[quote]all those who are regenerated in Christ and hold faithfully to the Faith once delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists.[/quote]

Funny how you don't mention Catholics, but multiple other faiths are ok? LOL You described the faith of anti-Catholicism. "One Faith". The only Church to hold faithful to the faith delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament is the Catholic Church.

Stick to the points above, either don't post here if you can't answer the questions, it's ok, we know you can't... so you don't have to boost your pride by trying to change the subject.

There are 19,000 pages of saint's and first Christian writings that are at our disposal to show our faith before 600 AD.

If you don't have that, you are counted with those in Acts 20:29-30.


Now, stick to what I brought up in my first 3 posts on this thread or you just go to further show that you've got a house on sand.




-ironmonk

Edited August 8, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 3 2004, 12:03 PM'] You keep saying it's wrong, but you haven't been able to prove anything except that your personal beliefs about Scripture are different than what the Church teaches... if your beliefs where true, why would you have to attack the Catholic Church? [/quote]
That's the most retarded argument I've heard all year. But let me twist it around.

If the Apostle Paul's teaching was true, why would he have to defend it from the Galatians who attacked it?

That's basically what Rome is doing, she is attacking the Gospel of Christ...

[Anna]

Again...
[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 3 2004, 02:03 PM'] [b]Prove it:[/b]

[b]1.. [/b]Prove the the Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, [u]by posting links to the parts of the Catechism [/u][b]and [/b][u]quoting verses in the bible[/u]...here is the link to the Catechism

[b] [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm[/url][/b]

[b]2..[/b] For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 500 AD to show that the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ built. 

These are the writings:
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url]

You can find the very same writings for free here:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url]





You keep saying it's wrong, but you haven't been able to prove anything except that your personal beliefs about Scripture are different than what the Church teaches... 

Truth cannot contradict truth. There is only one (True) Faith, not two.


... please, save us from the Catholic Church if it's wrong, show us how it's wrong.[/quote]

Please.

Edited August 8, 2004 by Anna

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 8 2004, 06:01 PM']
[/quote]
[quote]Why don't you stop trying to change the subject and stick to the topic of this post?[/quote] You were begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. I corrected you.

[quote]Protestant theology is irrelivant, it all came from a distortion of the Catholic Faith. It was not taught by the first Christians[/quote] Yes, it was - if you consider the first Christians to be the Apostles.

[quote], therefore it is counted with those that left in Acts 20:29-30.[/quote] Of course, you're assuming that 'the group' is the Roman Catholic Church. I would submit, rather, that the group in question is the group that holds faithfully to the teachings of the Apostles as revealed in their memoirs and letters - I.E. the Reformed.

[quote][b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, Since the "fathers" of the protestant faiths were all once Catholic (Luther, Knox, Calvin, etc...)... How were they faithful to what they learned from whom they learned it....?  They weren't faithful at all, they distorted it.
[/quote] What they learned was syncretistic lies and doctrines of men passed off as 'theology' handed down from the "Church" of Rome. They were faithful, rather, to what is revealed in the Bible by the Apostles - they learned their doctrine from the Apostles.

[quote]Stick to the points above, either don't post here if you can't answer the questions, it's ok, we know you can't... so you don't have to boost your pride by trying to change the subject.[/quote] Resorting to taunting now, are we, Max?

[ICTHUS]

SOLA FIDE IN THE FATHERS

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, [b]or works which we have done in holiness or heart, [i]but through faith[/i]"[/b] (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, [b]and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments[/b]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "[b]I know that through grace you are saved, [i]not of works[/i][/b], but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "[b]No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep[/b], or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, [b]but by faith[/b], through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, [b]that the transgression of many should be hidden in[/b] one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

Athanasius: "[b]Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith[/b], a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "[b]Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man[/b], that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, [b]his "faith is imputed for righteousness[/b]" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "[b]Through faith, without the works of the law[/b], the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, [b]God justified him through faith alone,[/b] not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, [b]not by works[/b]...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works [i]follow after a justified person[/i]; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...[b]good works, following after justification, [i]show what a man has received."[/i] [/b]

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...[b]put all your confidence in this death alone[/b]. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, [b]when not even our righteousness can answer for itself?[/b] Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, [b]being justified by faith alone[/b], he shall have peace with God."

www.justforcatholics.org

[Anna]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 08:54 PM']

Of course, you're assuming that 'the group' is the Roman Catholic Church. I would submit, rather, that the group in question is the group that holds faithfully to the teachings of the Apostles as revealed in their memoirs and letters - I.E. the Reformed.[/quote] Do you have any historical records of the Reformed, rather than the Catholic Church, upon which to base your assumption?


[quote]What they learned was syncretistic lies and doctrines of men passed off as 'theology' handed down from the "Church" of Rome. They were faithful, rather, to what is revealed in the Bible by the Apostles - they learned their doctrine from the Apostles.[/quote] Pardon. Who canonized the Bible? Who preserved it over the past two thousand years? And who changed it and deleted several entire books, about 500 years ago?
I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is faithful to what Christ taught her; the Apostles were the first Catholic bishops, and the Word and Sacraments have been passed down to the faithful over the centuries by, yes, the same Catholic Church. How can you deny history?

(sorry to butt in)

Edited August 9, 2004 by Anna

[ICTHUS]

Also, something interesting I came across....

The following statements are condemned by the Pope (Clement XI) as being in error:

26. No graces are granted except through faith.

27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.

28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner is the remission of sin.

32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the elect.

33. Ah, how much one ought to renounce earthly goods and himself for this, that he may have the confidence of appropriating, so to speak, Christ Jesus to himself, His love, death, and mysteries, as St. Paul does, when he says: "He who loved me, and delivered Himself for me" [Gal. 2:20]. (Notice, here, how the Pope condemns SCRIPTURE ITSELF as heretical!!)

[Aloysius]

source please....

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 8 2004, 07:07 PM'] Pardon.  Who canonized the Bible?  Who preserved it over the past two thousand years?  And who changed it and deleted several entire books, about 500 years ago?
I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is faithful to what Christ taught her; the Apostles were the first Catholic bishops, and the Word and Sacraments have been passed down to the faithful over the centuries by, yes, the same Catholic Church.  How can you deny history?

(sorry to butt in) [/quote]
[quote] Do you have any historical records of the Reformed, rather than the Catholic Church, upon which to base your assumption?[/quote] Well, the Roman Catholic Church didn't really get into hot water until a couple of centuries before the Reformation. Before this, there were a few false doctrines here and there, but nothing that impeded her from being a church of Christ altogether as there is now.

[quote]Pardon.  Who canonized the Bible?  Who preserved it over the past two thousand years? [/quote] Sure, the Roman Church preserved the Scriptures, to which the Reformed owe it a debt of gratitude. But this was part of God's providential plan to restore His Church out of the captivity of the [color=red][edited by littleflower: being disrepectful][/color]

[quote]And who changed it and deleted several entire books, about 500 years ago?[/quote] Those books were part of the Septuagint, and never part of the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles.

[quote]I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is faithful to what Christ taught her; the Apostles were the first Catholic bishops,[/quote] The Apostles were bishops, yes, but not Roman Catholic bishops.

[quote]and the Word and Sacraments have been passed down to the faithful over the centuries by, yes, the same Catholic Church.  How can you deny history?[/quote] Sure, we receive the Scriptures and the Sacraments from her, but she had perverted them. We reformed them.