Your attempted statement in the form of a question: “Are there any Protestants or even any Catholics here who didn’t think your talk of “40,000 versions of His truth” regarding Protestants didn’t mean denominations?”
Typical protestant attempt to change the meaning and misdirect. You need to accept the way it is written and not try to change the meaning. Many do this with God’s words as they reject God’s Truth and make up their own truth.
Jesus only established one Catholic Church and not the protestant versions or established multiple truths so that every protestant can have their own personal opinion of the truth.
Protestants have declared their belief in “sola scriptura” which is not Biblical and neither Jesus or any Apostle ever stated to rely only on the Bible. Protestants use this doctrine to have their own personal opinion of the truth. This is a way for Satan to spread his lies.
Catholics also have Sacred Tradition that oral teaching was passed down by Jesus and the Apostles and early Catholics and scholars to fully understand the teachings of Jesus (as He commanded Mark 16:15-18). The Mass and the Eucharist were established and actively participated by Catholics before any written form of the New Testament was available.
Catholics also have the Magisterium (Councils) which is infallible in matters of faith and morals to resolve any conflicts or disagreements within the Church. For example the circumcision issue in Acts and in 393 and 397 to approve the books of the Bible.
There are positive aspects of Protestantism believing in Jesus, but their changing or rejecting God’s truth and their prideful insistence that they know God’s truth is contrary to true faith. Jesus did not tell us 40,000 versions (or 1,000 or 200,000) of His Truth.If protestants refuse to accept His Truth and His Catholic Church, then their salvation is in jeopardy.
Protestant belief that they have guaranteed assurance of salvation before their death is not God’s Truth< St Paul told us to work out our own salvation (Phil 2:12) that our final salvation depends on a lifetime of keeping the faith (2 Tim 4:7-8), following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13). This obligation is so serious we pursue with fear and trembling.
I disagree bro. I HAVE assurance of salvation. Sorry if you don’t. 🔥
Grace is not preceded by merit.
A man can be saved only when God shows mercy.
A man can do no good without God. A man does nothing good for which God is not responsible.
We are loved by God, even when we displease Him, so that we might have means to please Him.
Your assertion: “our final salvation depends on a lifetime of keeping the faith (2 Tim 4:7-8), following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13). This obligation is so serious we pursue with fear and trembling.” ... and you are too dull to realize you are defining a works based salvation, which is of course anathema to the Gospel of The Grace of God in Christ. Your ‘other religion’ is accursed, ADSUM. You like the Yo-Yo god your are defining in Catholicism?
The Marian Apparitions at Lourdes were reported in 1858 by Bernadette Soubirous, a 14-year-old miller's daughter from the town of Lourdes in southern France.
From 11 February to 16 July 1858, she reported 18 apparitions of "a Lady".
...and this 'lady' never identified herself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_apparitions#The_16th_appearance_(25_March)
On 13 May 1917, the children reported seeing a woman "brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal goblet filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun."[7] The woman wore a white mantle edged with gold and held a rosary in her hand. She asked them to devote themselves to the Holy Trinity and to pray "the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and an end to the war".[7] While the children had never told anyone about seeing the angel, Jacinta told her family about seeing the brightly lit woman. Lúcia had earlier said that the three should keep this experience private. Jacinta's disbelieving mother told neighbors about it as a joke, and within a day the whole village knew of the children's vision.[8]
The children said the woman told them to return to the Cova da Iria on 13 June 1917. Lúcia's mother sought counsel from the parish priest, Father Ferreira, who suggested she allow them to go. He asked to have Lúcia brought to him afterward so that he could question her.
The second appearance occurred on 13 June, the feast of Saint Anthony, patron of the local parish church. On this occasion the lady revealed that Francisco and Jacinta would be taken to Heaven soon, but Lúcia would live longer in order to spread her message and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.[7][9]
During the June visit, the children said the lady told them to say the Holy Rosary daily in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary to obtain peace and the end of the Great War. (Three weeks earlier, on 21 April, the first contingent of Portuguese soldiers had embarked for the front lines of the war.) The lady also purportedly revealed to the children a vision of hell, and entrusted a secret to them, described as "good for some and bad for others".[9] Fr. Ferreira later stated that Lúcia recounted that the lady told her, "I want you to come back on the thirteenth and to learn to read in order to understand what I want of you. ...I don't want more."[10]
That month, instead of the usual apparition in the Cova da Iria on 13 August, the children reported that they saw the Virgin Mary on 19 August, a Sunday, at nearby Valinhos. She asked them again to pray the rosary daily, spoke about the miracle coming in October, and asked them "to pray a lot, a lot for the sinners and sacrifice a lot, as many souls perish in hell because nobody is praying or making sacrifices for them."[8]
The three children claimed to have seen the Blessed Virgin Mary in a total of six apparitions between 13 May and 13 October 1917.
...and this 'lady' never identified herself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima
The Guadalupe apparition DID claim to be "Mary"
"Know, know for sure, my dearest, littlest, and youngest son, that I am the perfect and ever Virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the God of truth through Whom everything lives, the Lord of all things near us, the Lord of heaven and earth.
Read ALL the stuff 'Mary" wants done for her: http://www.theotokos.org.uk
Jesus didn't found any Catholic so-called church.
Catholicism has become a den of iniquity and has forfeited any claim or right it feels it has to call itself a church.
Besides, Jesus never said He was going to *found* a church.
Nor did He say He was going to found THE CATHOLIC church. The phrase *Catholic church* is found nowhere in Scripture.
He said He was going t BUILD a church, which is different from founding it.
And besides, JESUS is the Chief Cornerstone on which His church is built.
If Catholicism claims it's built on Peter because he's the rock, then they are not the body of Christ.
Are you saying Rome can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholicisms authority? Because Rome calls it *sacred tradition*?
God said it. Christians believe it.
You apparently do not have assurance of salvation.
Nor will church membership - any church - nor rituals, nor supposed sacraments, nor filthy works, nor prayers get you to heaven.
St Paul told us to work out our own salvation (Phil 2:12)
Out not for.
that our final salvation depends on a lifetime of keeping the faith (2 Tim 4:7-8),Rewards not salvation.
following the commandments (Math 19:17),
Spoken to Jews that were under the Law, not believers in Christ.
preserving in good works (Rom 2:7),
Context dear boy. Study to show yourself approved.
striving for holiness (Heb 12:14),
Salvation is not based on sanctification in this passage - nor any passage. Again, context.
praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17),
Salvation is never based on prayer. Ever.
and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11),
This passage isn't about salvation either.
and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13).
Concerns temporal death, and not eternal death.
Totally incorrect list of passages. This obligation is so serious we pursue with fear and trembling.
ADSUM, the Lord will judge our words here, but He also says to work things out with people as much as possible before that happens.
Now your charges against me are false. It isn’t “changing the subject” to respond on a subject that you introduced, which is what you *really* meant when you spoke of “40,000 versions of His truth.” The Lord sees through us all and can’t be fooled and will judge our claims here.
And the Catholic Church differs from the church established by Jesus in many ways. That church was immediately under attack from inside and out, and of course the strategy was to infiltrate it and influence it from the inside. It still had the Gospel that people could respond to with belief but even that was constantly attacked to undermine it and over the centuries the tares did get a lot of influence.
So here’s a couple of questions that come to mind at this point: do you take the Creation account literally as written? And does your church?
You also referenced a number of Scripture verses in your reply to me, but very few Catholics would have the foggiest notion what they were about, or that they should know them.
There were ways that Scripture could have been taught before the printing press, but as the modern world has come into being it has been a greater failure of leadership all the time that the Catholic shepherds haven’t taught the Bible and its primary importance as evangelical Christians have. It gives us a new life right now of amazing intimacy with the Lord, as well as explaining this world so we’re no longer lost in it and dependent on the world’s lies, and it instructs us on how to defend our souls from Satan.
Yet the Catholic Church, including knowingly by its leaders, sends most of its flock into this world without adequate warning, defense, instructions and directions.
Who knows how you define “sola scriptura.” Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,
1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of the preaching of apostles was subject to:
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. (Acts 17:11)
2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.
3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
Questions for those who argue for the alternative of :sola ecclesia.
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
Indeed, small "c" catholic, and which simply cannot be the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church for distinctive Catholic teachings (some distinctively RC) are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
and not the protestant versions so that every protestant can have their own personal opinion of the truth.
Using the term "protestant" is invalid since it is far too broad and no one here is defending Protestantism, but unlike so much the latter, we overall do strongly esteem Scripture as alone being the sure and sufficient supreme standard as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic. Such testify to being far more unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death. All the while being an unholy amalgamation of liberals and conservatives with conflicting interpretations of what valid church teaching is and means. We have many here who even deny pope Francis. But you seem to be new here..
Catholics also have Sacred Tradition that oral teaching was passed down by Jesus and the Apostles and early Catholics and scholars to fully understand the teachings of Jesus
Invalid: as stated before, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), which neither popes and councils claim to do to speaking or writing what they assert is the word of God, while even the veracity preaching of apostles was subject to testing by Scripture (Acts 17:11; cf. Lk. 24:27,44,45) as the supreme established standard.
The Mass and the Eucharist were established and actively participated by Catholics before any written form of the New Testament was available.
Absurd. The NT church was definitely not Catholic based upon the supreme standard as the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive record of how they understood the OT and the gospels, Acts - Rev. in which the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle. And as shown , by the grace of God, the "body" they failed to recognize was the church as the body of Christ.
Catholics also have the Magisterium (Councils) which is infallible in matters of faith and morals to resolve any conflicts or disagreements within the Church.
Now that is wishful thinking, "any conflicts or disagreements" must ignore the fact that even how many and which, and which parts thereof of magisterial are infallible are subject to disagreements, as are their meanings (do you have an infallible list of all infallible teaching, and their meanings?) and what magisterial level others belong to. Thus the schisms many RC sects.
And while exalting the Magisterium, many Catholics are in essence like Bible Christians in that they determine the validity of modern RC teaching based upon their judgment of what past church teaching is and means (but for us this means the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed)
For example the circumcision issue in Acts and in 393 and 397 to approve the books of the Bible.
I think you should should know better than that. Rather than settling the canon, in reality not infallible definition was issued, thus scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books could and did continue down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
There are positive aspects of Protestantism believing in Jesus,
Again, who here is preaching whatever is called Protestantism? Much of that is liberal, and most are those closest to Rome.
but their changing or rejecting God’s truth and their prideful insistence that they know God’s truth is contrary to true faith.
Your recourse to pychopolemics and logical fallacy only further degrades your desperate responses, for rather than prideful insistence most converts to evangelical faith say they do so due to Catholicism being spiritually deficient, and which is why I, as a former weekly Mass-going altar boy, CCD teacher and lector,sincerely prayed to God that if He wanted me to go to a different church then he would show me. Which He quickly surely and manifestly did, leading me into evangelical fellowship, thanks be to God. I have no personal animus, and would like to go to a RC church but esteem for the Scriptures and what it teaches has enabled me to see even more that the Catholic church is not a true church, but a false one with many true teachings.
And while as a whole, the corporate church of today stands in contrast to the prima NT church in purity, power and passion, and which saw its unity under manifest apostles of God. (1Co. 6:4-10) And while much can be said about the current state of the evangelical church (and of my need for greater Christ-likeness), yet it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular with its distinctive teachings that is the most manifest church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction. Sadly.
Protestant belief that they have guaranteed assurance of salvation before their death is not God’s Truth< St Paul told us to work out our own salvation (Phil 2:12) that our final salvation depends on a lifetime of keeping the faith (2 Tim 4:7-8), following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13).
I do not agree salvation is guaranteed, but which ensured salvation most Catholics basically assume since Rome manifestly considers even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (Teddy K RCs) to be members in life and in death, while Scripture provides for presently knowing you possess eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13) And following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13) describes faith, and is consistent with sola fide, as shown. In contrast to RC teaching on salvation via becoming actually good enough to enter Heaven via Purgatory. .