How To Get To Heaven When You Die

The teaching method of both the OT and the NT:

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If the doctrines of the RCC were brought to light under the teaching methods of the Bible, the adherents of the RCC would be taken out and stoned to death according to OT law.

 

DHK, Oh golly wogs, you still have not answered my question, I figured you could answer that question ''in a snap" being your the Bible Alone advocate. But, of course I do understand that if you answer honestly you would then witness your whole position collapsing in ruins.
To answer your last post, you do realize that everything that those first Century Christians were taught came from the few teachers that could read and what they read to those early neophytes "only"came from the Old Testament, for the NT was non-existant then and for quite sometime after. So 'no" your answer does make sense when speaking about 1St. Century Christians. So my answers are still correct in that Jesus along with His Apostles only used the OT to quote from along with Sacred Apostolic Oral Teaching, Sacred because it came literally from the mouth of Jesus to His Teaching Apostles.

 

The Holy Spirit made the Church at the day of pentacost, and early on, the saved received BOTH the OT canon and those written by the Apostles of jesus as being inspired sacred texts, so there was the church of Christ existing in history way before the RCC!

 

the ONLY founder of ythe true Church of Christ was jesus himself, for it was built upon Him as the Chief Cornerstone, and your own peter would be the first to agree with scriptures that NO OTHER foundation can be laid than Christ!

So "my church" founder is Jesus Christ!

And Jesus did NOT state that the RCC was his church, but the one that had the real Gospel was!

As Jude declared to us that there were N O additional revelations/teachings coming from God, as we already had in the Canon the faith once and for all delivered to the saints!

 

I have answered all your questions and many times over. You simply ask the same questions over and over again, but worded differently. If you want to see whose questions go unanswered just start reading back a few pages. It is scripture you are unable to refute. Why? You don't believe it.

Did you actually have an honest question?

No, it wouldn't.

I have answered this many times. If I answer it again, now, will it make a difference. Will you understand and accept it? Or will you just reject it and go back to your RCC rants?
Your mindset is no different than the Pharisees of that first century:
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
--Peter and John were just fishermen--ignorant fishermen, perhaps illiterate as you are assuming just like the Pharisees did. That is your mindset.
However, both Peter and John, knew: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and possibly one or two other languages. But you think they were illiterate bumpkins. Astonished like the crowd at Pentecost you say: "Are these not all Galileans," as if to say they must all be uneducated. That is your opinion.
But let's set the record straight.
Under Roman rule, the Romans gave the world roads, a means of transportation throughout the known empire at that time.
But before Rome was Alexander the Great who also conquered the world. What legacy did Alexander leave? It wasn't roads. He left the world a language. By the time the Romans came all the known world knew Greek. It had become a universal language. In fact even a slave could read and write in the language; it was that common. God had been preparing the world for the entrance of a King, so that, "when the fullness of time had come God sent forth his Son..." (Gal.4:4)

Thus you are wrong in saying that just a few could read. No, almost everyone could read. It was a very literate society that they lived in. When Paul wrote a letter to Philemon it was very probable that the slave, Onesimus, could have read it.
They had to know Greek. It was the universal language of the day.
The Jews had to know the language of Hebrew, taught in their synagogues, the language in which their scriptures were written in. Aramaic was close to it, and some parts of the OT were also in Aramaic.
Latin was the official language being the Roman empire. All official documents were written in Latin. No businessman could survive without knowing Latin.
For example, Lydia would have had to know Latin.
This was not the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages were later on in history created by the nasty deeds of the RCC.

The Apostles used the OT.
The Apostles used NT Scripture as it came available (1Pet.3:15,16).
The Apostles used the very words of Christ as the Holy Spirit promised that he would bring them into memory.
The Lord promised to give to the churches spiritual gifts such as prophecy to make up for any lack of revelation that they might have had until the canon of Scripture was completed. (1Cor.13:8-13).

There was no Oral Tradition in place.
Paul taught Timothy the scriptures. He expounded them.
Timothy taught faithful men who in turn taught others. The Scriptures were always their final authority.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

The canon was finished by the end of the first century. It wasn't necessary for every church to have every book at one time. In due course they would. It wouldn't take long. They still knew which books were inspired and which were not. They were taught by the apostles themselves. Do not accuse the apostles of stupidity in not knowing which books were inspired and then claiming that only the RCC did. No one believes such fables.

 

DHK,unfortunately, you are using your private judgment to arrive at your conclusions about what Scripture means, but God didn't set it up that way. God established a Church to do that, just as He set up an authority in the Old Testament ( Moses) to interpret the Word of God. Private judgment is not only denied by Scripture, but such a heresy was unheard of until the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century! This is why there are 30,000 + different denominations, who all are in either conflict, confused, disagree with each other on even the most basic doctrines of Christianity. Surely,i can safely surmise that you, as a reasonable man, can see the problem with sola Scriptura.

Let's connect with our intellect and use some logic here.We both agree that the canon of Scripture is the infallible list of books that belong in the Bible. But the Bible doesn't tell us what the canon is. No, history shows us that the Universal [Catholic means Universal ] and Apostolic Church tells us what the canon is (which she did at regional councils at the end of the fourth century). But if the canon is infallible (which it must be), then the Church who determined the canon must be infallible as well, because an effect is never greater than its cause. The greater never comes from the lesser. Again, you as a reasonable person, can see the truth of this statement. I will try and answer your individual questions at a later time and I definitely question many of your answers.

 

In this one statement you show your lack of knowledge of the Bible.
The Bible says that "the scriptures are of no private interpretation."
It also commands every believer to "study to show themselves approved unto God."
"The private interpretation" is what the RCC has. It forces its adherents to believe what they teach, its interpretation as given in its Catechism, dictated by the Magesterium and the Pope. That is what is meant by "private interpretation."
The RCC's have a private interpretation.
The J.W.'s have a private interpretation (Charles Taze Russell).
The Mormons have a private interpretation (Joseph Smith)
The SDA's have a private interpretation (Ellen G. White)

I do as I am commanded to do and study the Scripture seeking God's guidance by the Holy Spirit. That is not a private interpretation. It may be personal, but not private.
--And that is how God "set it up." That each one of us come to our own conclusions and those conclusions would be the same if we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us. Unfortunately sin gets in the way. As I have pointed to you again and again: The evangelical community is far more united on the doctrine of salvation then even the RCC is united within its own organization.

God never established "a church," but rather churches.

You can't see the forest for the trees.
The RCC is the one that has private interpretation. My interpretation is personal but not private. IOW I don't force my interpretation on others like the RCC does. I don't make other people believe it. They are my convictions and I always challenge them to search the scriptures to see if they be true or not. That is what Paul's policy was:
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

You have illogical circular reasoning. With that reasoning you have demonstrated that you don't really believe the Bible or that its books are any more inspired than the works of Shakespeare.

The "Church" (no such thing) had nothing to do with it.
Absorb this into your mind and carefully remember it:

God gave us the books of the Bible, not any church!
--God inspired them.
God authored them.
They are from God and it was God that chose and used the authors that penned the words that God wanted written.
God had His Words, written down in His time, using His methods, to accomplish His purpose. None of it depended upon the RCC.

Christ used His Apostles or near associates such as Mark, to write the NT.
They were guided by the Holy Spirit who brought to remembrance all things that they were taught. Every book was written between 50-98 A.D.
The apostles themselves, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, knew which books were inspired.
There was no "Church" but only "churches" independent of each other.

The Apostles taught the early churches who in turn taught others. Eventually a complete canon was formed without the aid of an apostate RCC.
No "Church" determined the canon. The apostles determined the canon.
What was determined after that is what books, written after that period were false and in error. All of the apostles had warned the early believers that false prophets, false teachers would enter in. They had the truth. Now they had to be aware of the false.
Any epistle to Corinth dated 80 A.D. with 42 chapters and supposedly coming from Paul, is obviously false and to be thrown in the garbage. Even a simpleton could see that. Paul had died in 68 A.D. The error and false books were usually easy to see by discerning Christians.
The apostate RCC did not have a hand in determining the canon. Only RCC propaganda would allow someone to believe this nonsense.

 

Brother Lakeside, scripture makes it clear only Christ (God) can forgive sins. (Even the Pharisees knew this basic truth). But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk (Mark 2:6,7,9)

Even the Pharisees, though they did not recognize Jesus as God, knew it is blasphemy to think mere men can forgive sin. Also Jesus asks them if it is ears to say the crippled "arise...and walk." How come the Catholic Priests can't say "arise and walk" to the cripple like Jesus if they have the power to forgive sin?
Further, the Bible makes it clear Jesus by himself blots out the sin of HIS PEOPLE for it says, "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:" (Hebrews 1:3b). How can he purge our sins "by himself" if the priest is involved in the process? Utter blaspheme and nonsense is such a declaration.

 

Brother Lakeside,

Can you please post those Corinthian verses you mention above for me again? I can't decipher the books, chapters, or verses you are citing in Corinthians. Thanks.

 

Brother Lakeside,

We don't actually do any of the work. This is the next verse from the verse you quoted above, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13) Only the Holy Spirit in a person can do good.

After becoming born again, we have our flesh and His Spirit in us. Our flesh is totally depraved. You are trying to do "good works" to make or keep you salvation, however scripture is clear, the flesh cannot perform, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not" (Romans 7:18).

I do not believe you know how depraved the nature of mankind is. You said on a previous post something to the effect that the grace of the atonement restored us to what are nature was before the fall of Adam. There is no scriptural basis for such a statement.

 

Brother Lakeside, we do not author or own salvation as you contend above, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9). This verse describes salvation as Jesus being the author not us, it is said to them "that obey" because this is the product or evidence of having the salvation, not the means or cause of obtaining it, otherwise Jesus couldn't be said to be the "author" of it, could he?

"Salvation belongeth unto the Lord" (Psalm 3:8A), but you would say it "belongeth" to man.

"But the salvation of the righteous is of the Lord" (Psalm 37:9A).

"
He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved." (Psalm 62:2).

There are too many verses to list. You need to do a word search study for the word "salvation" as it appears in the Bible. It is quite apparent it is all "of the Lord" and not of man. To the child of God this is a glorious truth, but to the children of the devil it is an offense.

 

Brother Lakeside,

Doesn't the Catholic church want people to make a private interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20?. What kind of rule is it that says we can make a private interpretation of a verse which says we can't make a private interpretation! You quote 2 Peter 1:20 to support the doctrine of making no "private interpretations" expecting us to understand and to make a private interpretation of that very verse.

In the following I quote 2 Pet. 1:20 and the verse which follows it from two Catholic Versions. Please examine them carefully.
•"This, then you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. For not by will of man was prophecy brought at any time; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (Confraternity Version).
•"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (Catholic Edition, Revised Standard Version).

Catholic writers usually only quote the first verse (vs. 20). However, when viewing the two verses together, it is easy to see that Peter is not saying one cannot have a private interpretation of Scripture, but is teaching that no prophecy of Scripture ever came by private interpretation. W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "prophecy" signifies "the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God...in the N.T. it is used...either of the exercise of the gift or of that which is prophesied..." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary says, "prophecy" means "1: the vocation of a prophet; specif: the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose 2: an inspired utterance of a prophet." Thus, Peter is saying that no prophecy of Scripture (divine utterance of a prophet in writing) is a matter of one's own interpretation (i.e., not a matter of the prophet's own interpretation) because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but it came as the prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit. The passage affirms the inspiration of the Scriptures. They did not originate from private interpretations or private wills of men, but from holy men of God who were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

Brother Lakeside,

The Jews of old were to listen to God's Word, not to man's interpretations. When they became dependent on their leaders for interpretations, it proved disastrous to them. Notice the following from the Word of God.-

1."But these also have been ignorant through wine, and through drunkenness have erred: the priest and the prophet have been ignorant through drunkenness, they are swallowed up with wine, they have gone astray in drunkenness, they have not known him that seeth, they have been ignorant of judgment." (Isa. 28:7).
2."The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priest clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof?" (Jer. 5:31).
3."Therefore will I give their women to strangers, their fields to others for an inheritance: because from the least even to the greatest all follow covetousness: from the prophet even to the priest all deal deceitfully." (Jer. 8:10).
4."For the prophet and the priest are defiled: and in my house I have found their wickedness, saith the Lord." (Jer. 23:11).
5."Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane: nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean: and they have turned away their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them." (Ezek. 22:26).
6."And like the jaws of highway robbers, they conspire with the priests who murder in the way those that pass out of Sichem: for they have wrought wickedness." (Hosea 6:9).
7."Her prophets are senseless men without faith: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have acted unjustly against law." (Zephaniah. 3:4).

 

Brother Lakeside,

Please reply to these posts and all the others I posted preceding it (however I am not holding my breath).

The doctrine of an "infallible interpreter" is completely false and wholly unworthy of acceptance for the following reasons. First, it implies that the common people are too ignorant to understand. The religious leaders of Jesus's day thought the same when they said, "Has any one of the rulers believed in him, or any of the Pharisees? But this crowd, which does not know the Law, is accursed." (John 7:48-49). They thought the people were too ignorant of the Law to be able to decide if Jesus was the Christ. Nevertheless, the common people accepted Jesus but the rulers rejected Him.

Catholics raise tremendous opposition to private interpretation of the Bible; however, a study of the holy Scriptures plainly reveals that God requires and expects man to make private interpretations of His Word. The powers and blessings of the Word of God comes only to those who privately interpret the Word. For example: "refreshing the soul" (Psalm 19:8), "giving understanding to the simple" (Psalm 119:130), "which is able to build you up" (Acts 20:32 Catholic Edition RSV), "a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12), "I write to you in order that you may not sin" (1 John 2:1), "that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). These things are not received and are not accomplished unless one makes a private interpretation of the Word, thus, showing that a private interpretation is required. Man must exercise his senses upon the Word of God that he might be able to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14).

Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures. He used such terms as "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "have you not read?" (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), "is it not written in your law?" (John 10:34; Luke 10:26) which show that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., "You err, not knowing the Scriptures..." (Matt. 22:29 Douay-Rheims Version), "...Thus making void the word of God through your tradition" (Mark 7:13 Catholic Edition RSV). These things show that Jesus wanted and required a private interpretation of Scriptures.

The common people readily heard and understood Christ's teaching without an infallible interpreter. Mark 12:37 says, "And the mass of the common people like to hear him." Jesus said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." (Matt. 11:25). Isaiah, prophesying of the New Testament Way, said, "A path and a way shall be there...and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein." (Isa. 35:8).

What the Bible says
"These things I am writing to you that you may know that you have eternal life..." (1 John 5:13).
What the Bible does NOT say
"These things I am writing to you that when you obtain the infallible interpretations thereof you may know that you have eternal life..."

What the Bible says
"...The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments." (1 Cor. 14:37).
What the Bible does NOT say
"...The things I am writing to you when officially interpreted are the Lord's commandments."

What the Bible says
"...As you reading, my understand may knowledge in the mystery of Christ..." (Eph. 3:4 Douay-Rheims Version)
What the Bible does NOT say
"...As you reading, and have officially interpreted, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ."

What the Bible says
"...The Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15)
What the Bible does NOT say
"...The Sacred Writings, which when infallibly interpreted are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

What the Bible says
"...With meekness receive the ingrafted word which is able to save your souls." (James 1:21)
What the Bible does NOT say
"...With meekness receive the infallible interpretations of the ingrafted word which is able to save your soul."

 

Both DHK and Brother Joseph you both have made terrible mistakes with your refuting my last two posts, too numerous for me to clarify at this time, I earlier suggested to both of you that I have gladly accepted your challenge to a debate if you only ask me one question at a time. So lets get on with it, but the problem I have right now is that the weather is nice up here in the Western Mountains of Maine and I have many chores outside including getting my boat and the pier ready, along with finishing up on my large wood- fired pizza oven. I will try and answer on rainy days and breaks. So please don't think that I an trying to evade answering your questions. I am not very good as an apologist as many other Catholics are . The real qualified Catholic apologists usually do not come on these forums because they find these forums non- challenging and prefer debating Protestant Theologians. I don't mean that these forums do not have some very informed apologists as are my fellow Catholics on this BB. I am not as informed on Catholic teaching as they, neither am I educated as much, my life was spent as a brick/stone mason, commuters, tying, grammar, writing are not my forte. Regardless of my limitations I feel a need to try and correct the many mistakes, misunderstandings made against the Catholic Church, as a former Baptist for approximately two years I can understand your misgivings you have in understanding what the Church really teaches. Prior to leaving the Catholic Church I also believed as you believe, but as a 19Th Century British high- ranking Arch-Bishop of the English Anglican church once said shortly after converting to the Catholic Church, he said " to go into deep history is to stop being Protestant '' [ not his real wording ] That history he talked and wrote about has to come from a competent unbiased source.
My main problem with these debating attempts are;
Interpretation of Holy Scripture and ignorance of early Christian history, including history of compiling of the Holy Bible. I will give you an example:

Protestants reject the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as being not divinely inspired. Although Martin Luther and other Reformation leaders also rejected the New Testament deuterocanon, they ultimately retained these New Testament books in the Protestant version of the Bible.

Luther and other Protestant leaders rejected many Church teachings and Traditions. Their rejection of the deuterocanonical books allowed them to claim that the disputed doctrines had no basis in Scripture — their new canon of Scripture!

(A Catholic group called Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) has two excellent articles about this topic. The first describes how the canon of the books of the Catholic Bible was defined. The second article describes this history in more detail, including Luther's use of the term Apocrypha to cast a bad light on the Old Testament deuterocanon.)



The canon used by Christ

We Catholics don't think of the deuterocanon as "extra" books of the Catholic Bible!

To us, it's all "the Bible."

Our use of these books is historically based on the fact that Jesus and the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint most often. And it's ultimately determined by the Church's judgment that these books are all divinely inspired — a decision that we are confident was guided by the Holy Spirit during the first centuries of the Church.

The books of the Catholic Bible are the books that all Christians traditionally accepted. We can't change that historical fact just because some reformers rejected parts of the Bible during the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s.

 

The RCC added 11 books to the Bible after the Protestant Reformation.

Recall that the "Protestant Reformation" is a case of CATHOLICS that are "protesting" and "reforming" their OWN denomination.

There is nothing in Luther's writings claiming that the Bible should "no longer contain 77 books" -- nothing at all because the RCC had not yet "invented" the idea that the Canon consists of 77 books.

That "invention" came later.

Even so the 66 books of the actual Bible - do tell us about Salvation.

Even by Catholic standards.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is NO example of Apostolic succession after the cross. NOT one post-cross Apostle was ever succeeded by anyone.

There is ONE example of a pre-cross disciple being succeeded - and that is Judas in Acts 1.

Beyond that -- nothing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Brother Lakeside, if the posts of mine were riddled with so many mistakes, I would have at least expected one or two posts by you in rebuttal, but as I predicted you did not rebuttal my posts. I can probably go through this thread and find about 10 posts of mine to you that were never replied to.

Fair enough. Here is the verse I would like to discuss with you. "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" (Ephesians 2:1)

As this verse makes it clear a man before he is born of the Spirit is "dead in trespasses and sins", therefore how can a dead man repent and believe in the gospel as a dead man cannot do anything?

 

BrotherJoseph, you wrote; " "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" (Ephesians 2:1)

As this verse makes it clear a man before he is born of the Spirit is "dead in trespasses and sins", therefore how can a dead man repent and believe in the gospel as a dead man cannot do anything?


What has that got to do with Catholic Theology ?

 

BobRyan, you wrote: " There is NO example of Apostolic succession after the cross. NOT one post-cross Apostle was ever succeeded by anyone.

There is ONE example of a pre-cross disciple being succeeded - and that is Judas in Acts 1.

Beyond that -- nothing."



The apostles certainly did replace themselves not only for themselves but also for the continuation of the Biblical ordained clergy. { for example Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Matthias -Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1: 5 ]
A continuation of Successors from the Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles was necessary [ all authority was passed on by Jesus to His Apostles and they to others, as seen in previous quotation ] unless you think that Jesus only wanted His First century Christians "alone" to receive the Gospel and not any future generations of Christians, is that how you think ?