T Nation

Catholic Q&A Continues


I might as well. Somebody else will any way.
Bother Chen should see here from December of 2010: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/judaism_vrs_christianity_debate;jsessionid=C1D26E6E144C172701647978F2220B64-hf.hydra?id=4232600&pageNo=2

Sweet Revenge is a nice guy, but he is a heretical non Christian cultist. This is veering off topic though I am actually trying not to.


I am in the second group? So, I cannot be part of the former group?

So, I am able to be part of that former group? I am slightly confused. Can you explain this, it seems like these are conflicting statements. Please correct me and show me how I have made a mistake.

I can study the Bible directly on my own. But, can I know what it correctly says? What evidence is there for that? The Bible seems like a tough nut to crack. And, how do I know I have the right books? My favorite books outside the Gospels are Revelations, Sirach, Wisdom, and I like rereading Maccabees because my Jewish baby sitter used to tell me the story of Judas Maccabee and the Jewish rebels.

I don't find myself too sensitive, in reviewing my actions I have been disinterested in the debate since the start, the one exception is when I though I insulted you and had caused you to be angry. I say that you attack the Church as that you attack the Church with your argument rather than attacking my question. I suppose that I should use more modern words, you are focusing on the Church instead of my question. You answer some question that I have not answered in which you tell me about the Catholic Church.

Let's not pretend there are worse sinners than me. I am a terrible Catholic, and terribly bad at being bad sometimes. I am afraid that I am seen as luke warm sometimes, at least Vlad the Impaler didn't pretend he wasn't blood thirsty. I don't know why they even let me in their ranks, probably has to do with Jesus coming for sinners or something.

I don't believe I placed reliance on my Holy Mother at all in this discourse. I have just asked a question, I wanted to know how we know which books are in the Bible and how we know they are authoritative. You haven't really given me an answer (close, you told me those with the Holy Witness present are able to determine if a book has authority and gave somewhat of a subjective method), but I want to know the method in which we determine if a book has Divine Authority behind it.

I ask, as a Christian who has accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior many times in my life going through continual conversion and renewal, who prays for guidance and to be filled with the Holy Ghost, can I determine which books have authority and are supposed to be in the Bible? And, by what method should I go about this?

And, how do I go about this while keeping the command of unity to be of one spirit, one mind, and the one faith of the gospel? Will this happen de facto if I am filled with the Holy Ghost?


Start with nearly any page here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ When one has not surrendered their mind to this man made organization, anti biblical tradition comes careening from this site in breakneck rapid fire fashion. All due "courtesy, charity and respect" intended. I have work, but I'll find a quote of mine to Cortes later.


We'll get there in our discussion of epistemology Chris. Speaking for myself only.

This is a great question indeed. Peter, in his first epistle ch.1 v.16 quotes the 14th of Leviticus where God commands Israel "Ye shall be holy; for I am holy". Could you please grace us with a 10 scale rating on how well you believe your church has fulfilled this command from Nicaea to the present? Please? (notice how calmly and "charitably" I'm talking to you now Christopher? =] I like this better actually)


Bro Chris,

In my mind, I've answered at least part of the above fairly completely. I'll have to look at our exchange more carefully, and then answer. May take a day or two.

But Tirib's ref to 1Pe 1:16 is certainly pointing you in the right direction on that question.


Right now he's thinking that my tone is disingenuous. I guess I can't blame him. I have been inordinately harsh and nasty in the past. I stand by what I've said, but not how I've said it. I will never retreat Christopher. You know that. However I AM sorry for the hurtful manner I have at times dealt with you in the past. As far as it depends upon me it will not be so from now on.


As a sign of how awesomely interesting we are, we get 47 pages worth of posts over two threads, on the first page of PWI. Radical, dudes.


I find your church, her history, theology, practice, politics and everything else she is and has done to be very interesting. No matter what anybody thinks, or whether they like it or not, the Catholic Church occupies a humongous place in world history.


Not that I mind the back and forth. As long as we're each getting at least something from the other it's worthwhile.


Oh Tirib,

If you are going to talk about me falsely, then I have no choice but to come and defend myself. Let's break it down...heretical, non Christian, cultist.

Heretical -- From your perspective? Yes. That's fine.

Non Christian - Maybe to the extent that I might attend a yoga class 2-3 times a year. They do start with a gong, an Om or two, perhaps a foreign-sounding prayer, and a definate bow and 'Namaste' - I salute the divinity present and in you....... But I enjoy greater mobility and focus when I walk out...so let's call it an alternative work-out. Also part of our extended family is Jewish, so we occasionally attend Hanukkah and Passover celebrations, just like they attend Christmas and Easter gatherings. No one gets uptight about it and we mostly just enjoy each others company with Love being the greatest commandment ... far far far ahead of judgement of the way God leads His children. All told, we have Catholics, Protestants, Jews, one Muslim (by marriage) and even an out-of-the-broom-closet Wiccan (very entertaining). We all manage to get along without judgement because God leads His Own.

Cultist? - Here I must absolutely take exception. Considering that I am not affiliated with any specific religous group, I am one of the most non-cult-like individuals you'd ever meet. Catholicism, Calvanism, Judaism and most other ISMs are far more cult-like in the big scheme of things. You can call me 'non-denominational', but 'cultist' is very inaccurate.

This is not intended as a hijack - more of a response to being falsely accused. Therefore, no response is necessary. Please pardon the interuption and carry on!


Yes, certainly, you could go back and examine the decisions they've made. If the Holy Spirit will witness to you directly, as he did to them, what would prevent you from doing so?

Which statements exactly do you find conflicting?

In order to know what it correctly says, you must "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Ti 2:15KJV) And not just an ordinary student either, but diligent, as the verse stresses. You are studying the "Word of life".

My comparison of you with those teachers within the Catholic church has nothing to do with defining your nature, but rather to remind you that you are in the same position before God, as all sinners, ordained ministers or otherwise. Do you recall I said you need to determine your bearing, and then fall in with someone who is going the same direction as you, but more experienced and knowledgeable? This is one of the functions of the NT local church-

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4:11-12)

However, you should never completely give your heart and mind's training over to anyone, without consideration for their abilities, and moral qualifications. Please notice the standard is very high for one to be qualified:

1Ti 3:2-9 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Notice he is not celibate by the way (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (8) Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; (9) Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

Although, even if you join yourself to such a local church, with a qualified pastor and deacons, you are still not absolved from the need to study on your own, and verify what you've been taught is consistent with Scripture. Note here Paul's praise of the Bereans for having this habit:

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. (Act 17:11)

As I answered earlier, and which answer is of course subjective, at some point, faith that God will lead you right, if you do everything you can, is the final answer. For you, since you have special questions about the canonization process of the bible, I would say that would include getting a couple of books on the subject.

You are referring to Eph 4:13 I believe-

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

Paul is describing an ongoing process that eventually is completed as a future state. It a growth that begins in this life within the local church, as verses 11 and 12 make clear. We are to strive towards this as individual Christians, but it describes the future corporate state of the body of Christ, which cannot be attained in this life because the sins of the individual.

I did want to address this statement with some biblical instruction- If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior, it is an effectual transaction once and for all:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Joh 1:12) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Joh 1:13)

You are born into the family of God, now one of his children. It's a one time deal. It cannot be undone by you, as it was not accomplished by you. Here is another verse that makes this clear:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

Notice also the order of events here:

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,(Eph 1:13). This seal cannot be broken my man.

You have an adoption paper that releases you from the fear of your inability to match God's perfect standard, and His subsequent rejection: "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Rom 8:15)

Okay Chris, that should be enough to work through for one post.


An encyclopedia?

It's a book of facts. I'm not quite sure how facts can be considered anti-biblical tradition.


Which part of the Church?


When you posted this I wasn't thinking that. Still don't.

I was thinking about that it's awesome that I don't get checked for ID in this New Orleans and that it's even more awesome you can walk around with a daiquiri on Bourbon St. without getting cited for open containers.


Okay, Mr. Chen. I still be back to read through yours. I have to get back to my homework. Maybe on a long break I'll have enough time to give it a whirl.


Woohoo! We hit the limit on the old thread! Good stuff...

Anyways, continued from the previous thread....

I don't get the analogy. Who said it was bad? By whose authority was this determined? It was in the original bible cannon Luther removed it, but yet, ironically he did consider those books important matters of study, but they conflicted with his notion of salvation. It was the intentions of man, not God, to removed them.
I consider the argument that there books were considered divinely inspired, and then suddenly not based on a reformist point of view....

First, there is no where in scripture that speaks to purging oneself of ritual. Second, Catholic 'rituals' are all scriptural based. The purpose of the rituals is consistency across the board, not for the point of simply being repetitive. In fact it was inconsistency across the early churches that drove Paul nuts. Having one body, one structure prevents heresy and false teaching.


The apocrapha was hardly removed "suddenly" by Luther. The OT was written in Hebrew. No intertestamental books there. The Pashitta already contained all but 5 of the 27 NT books by the 5th century.

You brought up the question of rituals. I called them "habitual ways of doing things." I don't think it's a big issue.


Let's go back to this one though; you have big problem. And to answer the question of why the issue of the Peter not being the first pope is so important- Of course it's because this mistaken belief is the foundation of the whole hierarchical structure.

No Jesus didn't. Simon was already also called Peter when Jesus first met him:

And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mat 4:18)

I already showed you from the book of Acts that this was clearly not the case. Here is our exchange from pg 43. If you want to make Peter the "head cheese", you must deal with these verses:

Hardly. Paul never reported to Peter once.

Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
(Act 15:13 KJV)
(James speaking) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Act 15:19)

Once Paul even had to rebuke Peter:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)


It is erupting with big C Catholic doctrine that is absolutely anti-biblical unless you let the Vatican do your thinking for you. Some that is so manifestly clear that even rank pagans like Bodyguard can plainly see that mine is the obvious interpretation over the crow bar n duct tape bar method employed by the magesterium.

Don't you play games with me Christopher after we've come this far together. On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the one true most holy and apostolic bride of Christ in her obedience to God's command to holiness? Holiness is conformity to the character of God. Christlikeness. From Nicea to the present.

Paul in his famous exposition on marriage in Ephesians 5 where he likens the covenant of man and wife to Christ's with His church says:

Does this describe THE church. Your church? Yay or nay. I dare you to give that a "yay" with a straight face. And if "nay", why not and when do you suppose we can expect this holy and blemish free Catholic, big C church to emerge?

As you have no doubt surmised, I am well prepared no matter what you say. That's how you do debating ya know. You never ask your opponent a question unless you are well satisfied with your own answers to every possible response he may give. I am. Now let's here it huh bucko =]
(The fact that you're about to take it on the chin Chris has nothing to do with me being smarter than you. I have some years on ya, but more importantly the truth is on my side. Remember how I waited like 21/2 or 3 months for an answer to whether Adam's sin was mortal or venial? http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/god_of_ot_and_god_of_nt?id=4411981&pageNo=6 That was because you figured out what I was doing with that. I gained a bunch of respect for your abilities through that conversation. I mean this from my heart man. Think long and hard about this one)

Thank you Chris. I've looked back at some of those conversations and I WAS a jackass to you sometimes. I'm glad you can tell I don't want to do that anymore.


The problem with the line of castigation you and Mr. Chen are following, Tirib, is that it is the same one that the atheists use in denigrating the authority of Christianity or religion as a whole, oh yes it is, to borrow your line.

You will always be able to find something to point to and say "See, there it is! [point point jump up and down] Proof positive that the Romish Church is indeed the tool of Satan himself. Just looky there at all the bad stuff those varmints have been up to over the past 2000 years."

Yet, if we point to similar acts, say, a certain instance of gleeful murder by one John Calvin, there's always a way of weaseling out of responsibility because there is ultimately no one to answer for the misdeeds of your own Church. There are plenty, plenty of evils committed by men and women in Protestant churches, yes, even Calvinistic ones. Point to any one of those and the easy escape is always the same. Well, he's not a REAL Christian. Yeah.

Turn this on its face. You can say, well look at my man Van Til. He was a shining example of everything that Calvinism should be. Yet, if we point to the good deeds performed by men in the name of Jesus Christ via the Catholic Church, then it's "faith not works, brother." I saw you do this once quite blatantly, when a Catholic Charity was performing works of, well, charity, and not actively witnessing to its recipients. As if the action, "work," was not example enough in itself.

Which leads me to another question. I'm paraphrasing here, but you have stated numerous times that he who has truly accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and enjoys the true fruits of the Holy Spirit will demonstrate this in his life and actions (again, paraphrasing, you know what I'm saying). Yet, where is the cutoff point? Certainly you would not state that you, yourself, are without sin, are righteous, right? And there have been times, you are freely admitting here, where you have been quite the "jackass" (your word, above). So, was this the Holy Spirit working through you? A temporary lapse, but not really the same as the kind of lapse a Catholic doesn't have because his whole life is pickled in sin anyway? Is it an aberration, or behavior to be excused because you get enough of the other stuff right? And how do we go about determining just what is the fruit of the Holy Spirit around the beams in our eyes? That is discernment, yes? How do we discern degree?

How is it not all just one big subjective mess?