Converting to Catholicism

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

But on what basis?

My point is that accepting the basis on which the Bible is confessed as Scripture necessitates, at the very least, accepting the authority of the early ecumenical councils. Sure, one might just decide to accept the Bible while rejecting and calling 'wicked' the reasoning behind the process by which it took shape, but, again, on what basis?

You don't need to know anything about how the Bible was compiled to believe it was written by inspiration of God. You just need to look at its characteristics and decide that there is something different and special about the Bible that makes the claims made in it about itself to be true. The Bible stands on its own and does not need the recommendation from anything else.

The thinking behind the compiling of the Bible might well have been right in many ways but that does not prove that the thinking of those same people was correct on everything or that they really were faithful servants of God.

[Why]

I don't know how good a claim this is, but I remember my fundamentalist pastor said that the canon was more or less fully developed before the ecumenical councils and that all churches were more or less operating on the same scripture, give or take a few books.

This is a reasonable response/counterclaim.

You don't need to know anything about how the Bible was compiled to believe it was written by inspiration of God. You just need to look at its characteristics and decide that there is something different and special about the Bible that makes the claims made in it about itself to be true. The Bible stands on its own and does not need the recommendation from anything else.

The thinking behind the compiling of the Bible might well have been right in many ways but that does not prove that the thinking of those same people was correct on everything or that they really were faithful servants of God.

This isn't.

Why?

[Why]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind. 

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

[Why]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind. 

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.

[Why]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.  

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.

You said that the Bible stands on its own, which I can agree with in terms of its themes.  But we still have to come for a justification as to which books are in the Bible and that the process by which it was compiled is legitimate - otherwise, it's hard to argue that the Bible is complete and  fully inerrant (in terms of every book in it) if we can't place some faith in either the ecumenical councils or the early church's general agreement on the canon.  That was the point I was trying to make.

I place faith in God and that he put the Bible together how he wanted. Knowledge of how He did it is interesting but not vital to faith.

The Catholics argument is, in my experience, that 'we made the Bible, so we must be right, so you must be a Catholic'. I feel this argument is flawed and the finer details do not matter.

Yes Catholics and Protestants agree on a lot of doctrines, but I would not describe myself as either or subscribe to the false doctrines of either.

[Why]

Yes Catholics and Protestants agree on a lot of doctrines, but I would not describe myself as either or subscribe to the false doctrines of either.

Then what are you?


...aside from a pretentious buffoon, I mean.

A Bible believer.

[Why]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

If you want to use Protestant in its absolute broadest sense then yes I guess I am but that in my experience is not how it is used. It is usually linked to a more concrete set of beliefs.

[Why]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

If you want to use Protestant in its absolute broadest sense then yes I guess I am but that in my experience is not how it is used. It is usually linked to a more concrete set of beliefs.

Fair enough.  There's probably also regional differences in use for these terms; my point was just that your attack against the Catholic Church probably isn't the strongest, though there certainly are angles of critique against them. 

But the question remains - how can you say you're a defender of the "Bible" if you're not trying to defend a canon?  You have to have a canon to have a Bible.  I might not be understanding your argument though, so my apologies if that is the case.

I did not start this line of discussion in the posts, it was started by LIVE THE DREAM. PURGE THOSE BOZOS, I was just replying to him.

[Why]

I attend a congregation of believers.

[Why]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

[Why]

The custom on this forum is to use the little name under the display name if the display name seems overtly bizarre or non-name-like. So, in this case, call me Nathan.

Sorry.

[Why]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I assume it's nondenominational, but are there any doctrinal distinctives y'all have?  Calvinist or Arminian?  Once-saved-always-saved or not? 

Don't assume anything.

[Why]

I will state what I believe which would be consistent with the doctrinal statement.

I believe there is one God the Father
I believe that He created the heavens and the earth at a time close to 6000 years ago.
I believe that that the Lord Jesus is his Son.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe in conditional immortality
I believe in bodily ressurection
I believe that the Lord Jesus will return to earth to become king over God kingdom on earth
I believe that baptism is a requirement of God as an act of obedience and is a symbol of the death a resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I believe that the wicked will be punished by death in grave.

I do not believe in the trinity, substitutionary atonement, immortal souls, heaven going, a supernatural devil, hell as a place of torture, evolution, once saved always saved or Calvinism.

[Why]

I will state what I believe which would be consistent with the doctrinal statement.

I believe there is one God the Father
I believe that He created the heavens and the earth at a time close to 6000 years ago.
I believe that that the Lord Jesus is his Son.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe in conditional immortality
I believe in bodily ressurection
I believe that the Lord Jesus will return to earth to become king over God kingdom on earth
I believe that baptism is a requirement of God as an act of obedience and is a symbol of the death a resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I believe that the wicked will be punished by death in grave.

I do not believe in the trinity, substitutionary atonement, immortal souls, heaven going, a supernatural devil, hell as a place of torture, evolution, once saved always saved or Calvinism.

Interesting.  I like all of that except the young-Earth creationism part (I have studied this topic pretty extensively as a former YEC and have concluded that a young Earth/global flood model is untenable).

So believe in an old age kind of creationism with a local flood not a world wide flood?

[Why]

Aw shucks fellas. I didn't mean to go and start this whole disagreement, I just thought I'd ask about the steps I needed to take in order to convert. Didn't meant to get every all flustered with each other.

It certainly is NOT your fault.

[Why]

Oh my this got insanely out of hand. If you must continue to defame our religion then please leave and create your own thread. This thread is about aiding and supporting one person with a life decision.

Yes

[Why]

I will state what I believe which would be consistent with the doctrinal statement.

I believe there is one God the Father
I believe that He created the heavens and the earth at a time close to 6000 years ago.
I believe that that the Lord Jesus is his Son.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe in conditional immortality
I believe in bodily ressurection
I believe that the Lord Jesus will return to earth to become king over God kingdom on earth
I believe that baptism is a requirement of God as an act of obedience and is a symbol of the death a resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I believe that the wicked will be punished by death in grave.

I do not believe in the trinity, substitutionary atonement, immortal souls, heaven going, a supernatural devil, hell as a place of torture, evolution, once saved always saved or Calvinism.

You probably shouldn't be attempting to lecture others while belonging to a non-Christian cult.

It seems you would not a real Christian if they were standing in front of you.