In love with Evangelical and thinking of leaving Catholic Church : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was brought up as a very dedicated Catholic. All my life I always had a negative attitude towards all Protestants. I was certain that the Catholic church was the "one true church."

Recently I fell in love with an amazing Evangelical girl. The thing that actually attracted to me most was her unique relationship with God. I was concerned that she wasn't Catholic but I thought it would be easy to convince her that the Catholic church was the "one true church."

Instead I started looking at the criticisms of the Catholic church and finding some of them valid. In particular, the whole salvation argument. I find myself taking the Protestant side. Surely no amount of good we do can save us. Surely the only thing that can save us is putting our trust in Jesus. How else could the repentant murderer on his deathbed go to heaven? The Catholic Church states that we can "merit for ourselves...the graces needed...for the attainment of eternal life" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2010). This doesn't make sense to me. How can we merit graces if even the Catholic church defines grace as "favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us." You can't merit something you don't deserve.

-- Kin Juh (, July 20, 2004


"Surely no amount of good we do can save us. Surely the only thing that can save us is putting our trust in Jesus."

A: That's exactly right. And if you were raised Catholic, you should know that that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, and has taught since Jesus Christ founded it. However, both the constant teaching of the Christian Church for 2,000 years, and the Holy Bible compiled by that same Church, clearly and repeatedly emphasize that you cannot be saved if you neglect good works. Likewise you cannot be saved if you lack faith. Good works cannot save you. Faith cannot save you. Only our Lord and Savior, the founder of the Holy Catholic Church, can save you. But He can save you only if you respond to Him and accept the free gift of salvation He offers. Faith and works are how we respond to Him. Faith and works are the necessary means of accepting the free gift of salvation. Without faith, works are mere humanitarianism. Without works, faith is dead, useless. Therefore, faith and works are equally necessary for salvation, even though neither one of them directly saves you.

-- Paul M. (, July 20, 2004.

Only our Lord and Savior, the founder of the Holy Catholic Church, can save you. Then how is it that Muslims are included in the plan of salvation? They don't "trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior."

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims" CCC 841

-- Kin Juh (, July 20, 2004.

how, kin juh, can you be prepared to leave the catholic church, when you havent bothered yet to learn anything of it?

Paul M had a great answer for you, and you will find many more here, if truth is what you really seek.

as to your question on how a muslim can be saved: through a factor called invincible ignorance. if a person, through no fault of their own, is never exposed to christian truth BUT lives according to the tenets of their faith and commits no mortal sin, we recognize the fact that that person would MOST LIKELY have desired to accept christian truth had it been offered to them. As such, it is to God (not you) to judge their salvation based on the moral desires of their heart... namely, God determines how they would have responded to the sacraments and if they would be baptised and reborn through desire (as opposed to the physical act by which catholics are reborn into the church of Christ).

-- paul h (, July 20, 2004.

"He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:11-12)

That's the Word of God Himself on the subject. If those who do not know Christ are saved, it is still only by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the mercy of God that they are saved. God can save whomever He wishes. But no-one could be saved without the salvific act of God the Son.

-- Paul M. (, July 20, 2004.

Noone's answered me on how we can merit the graces for eternal life.

-- Kin Juh (, July 20, 2004.

"This doesn't make sense to me. How can we merit graces if even the Catholic church defines grace as "favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us." You can't merit something you don't deserve."

My opinion...

Can one sin repeatedly and continue in sin AND truly accept Jesus Christ... In other words, can one not be in a state of grace and truly unite with God? I would suggest it possible; however, not the norm... One must either be in a state of grace or work to achieve it...

I would suggest works are to a degree about attaining a state of grace vs disgrace. Sin can be though AND action -what of the opposite -why can grace ONLY be attained by thought alone?

-- Daniel Hakenberry (, July 20, 2004.

We know that no-one "deserves" salvation and we know that no-one can "earn" salvation". We know this because it is the constant teaching of God's Church, which is the only way anyone can know Christian truth with certainty. You seem to be hung up on the word "merits", as though it were a synonym for "earns" or "deserves". It isn't.

Many Protestants will claim that nothing we do contributes to our salvation. Yet, these same Protestants are quick to admit that not everyone is saved. Well, if not everyone is saved, then there has to be some factor that determines who is saved and who is not saved. That leaves two possibilities. First, God decides, irrespective of anything we do or don't do. That's the heresy of predestination, which is incompatible with what divine revelation tells us about the nature of God. So, if God doesn't predestine individuals to be saved or damned, then the deciding factor MUST be something we do or don't do during our allotted time on earth.

Any Protestant would agree that there are things people can do that will cause them to forfeit salvation. Well, you can't have one side of the coin without the other. If there are things we can do that forfeit salvation, then obviously there are things we can do that allow us to receive salvation - even if it's nothing more than avoiding the things that destroy our chances for salvation. Salvation is available to all. Yet it is received only by some - by those who do what is required to receive it. This is what is meant by "meriting" salvation.

We know that no-one is literally "worthy" of salvation, in the sense that God owes us anything, or that we "deserve" anything from Him. Yet the Bible tells us ... "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God." (Colossians 1:10) Here we have a description of what "meriting" the graces of salvation means, and specific instructions on what is required for such "worthiness" or "merit" - (1) good works and (2) growth in faith.

-- Paul M. (, July 20, 2004.

OK If the Catholic Church is not the one true church, then the most likely other candidate for this title is Eastern Orthodoxy.

What do they say about the various things you have mentioned?

We split from them over a millenia ago and believe we are heretics, therefore I am sure you will find huge differences in doctrine since we made it all up. Let us know how you get on in your research.

-- Hugh (, July 21, 2004. and I are the true church of Chirst. The true church does not belong to roman, the catholics, prostestant or any other denomination.

We must more away from doctrines and traditions and focus on our relationship with Jesus Chirst. He would lead us, not the church, for man will fail us, Jesus never will.


-- Nolan Naicker (, July 21, 2004.

Paul M,

Let's go back to the CCC for the definition of merit:

The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense OWED by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, DESERVING reward or punishment. CCC 2006

I am hung up on the word "merits" as though it were a synonym for "deserves" because that's what the CCC says.

-- Kin Juh (, July 21, 2004.


Why are you frightened to do this research? Don't repsond, just do the research that I recommend.


-- Hugh (, July 21, 2004.

Merit is a tricky word, and often misunderstood. Read this for a better understanding: See:

The Catholic understanding of grace as participating in the life of the Trinity is very broad and very deep and it's not easy to make a quick statement.

I think part of the mystery of how God's grace operates on us, vs our cooperation (because it's always God's initiative first) is best appreciated by meditating on the Annunciation.

Here you have almighty God about to become incarnate as a man. And the writings of the Church Fathers always make a big deal about Mary's assent, her "fiat", "Be it done unto me according to thy word."

It is always God who acts. But our free will is always respected. It is up to us to respond. And our responses, our actions, our works, are very important. They prove our fidelity to grace. They are our response to God's love.

-- tony c (, July 21, 2004.

nolan, here i will address your points:

Point 1. To even suggest that anyone, even Mary the human mother of Jesus, participates in dispensing the gift of eternal life is not only heresy, it is blasphemous."

first, i'm glad you recognize the fact that Mary was the mother of God. thats a good step for you. HOWEVER, you fail to recognize the inherant blasphemy in your statement. you see, there IS someone who participates in dispensing the gift of salvation... Jesus Christ. Imagine that, a catholic telling you that Jesus is the only source of your salvation... maybe you dont know as much about us as you thought???

As for the Catholic view of Mary as Mediatrix, let me refer you to: 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

since you are, apparently, unaware of what the term mediatrix means, I will seek to enlighten you with this overly simple explanation: mediatrix does not mean one who mediates. it more accurately would be labelled as one who ENABLES a mediator. Mary is the mediatrix because her humble submission to the will of God allowed Christ to come into the world THROUGH HER BODY in order to be the Mediator of all graces. i think the matter of intercessory prayer has already been described enough for you to be sufficient in showing that either 1) the bible is contradictory and therefore unreliable or 2) your interpretation about praying for others is incorrect.

Point 2 - The Catholic Belief: Grace Alone will NOT get me to Heaven The implication is that a person will accept salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, then ignore the Word of God and live sinfully in the world.

BZZZZT--- WRONG!!! the catholic belief: we are saved by Grace alone BECAUSE of our faith which is made full by the fruit of our good works. NO CATHOLIC should EVER consider that grace is NOT what saves us because ultimately we are unworthy of salvation EXCEPT through the sacrifice of Christ which payed for our sins.

If an individual truly places their faith in Jesus Christ, then they will desire to do His will. If someone makes no effort to repent from sinful behavior after becoming a Christian, their faith would then be in question. That’s what James referred to when he said that faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

So what youre saying is that after all this time and all this hubbub about how you THINK the catholic church is wrong, you have arrived at what james said, at what the catholic church has taught for 2000 years? all this could have been skipped if you had bothered to learn before you presumed to teach us.

If good works and participation in the sacraments were necessary for salvation and justification, then Jesus lied to the criminal on the cross next to Him when he said, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” This criminal was justified solely on the basis of his faith in Jesus Christ. He did not have the opportunity to participate in ritualistic sacraments, nor did he have time to do “good works.”

once again, incorrect. the theif had valid works in the eyes of the Lord. he had christian faith, compassion, intercession, and contrition. these are ALL works of the faith which he exibited in the few moments we read about him, which only detail a small part of his act of faith in his final HOURS of life. FURTHERMORE, he accepted christian truth when it was offered him and it allowed him to recieve the sacraments through a spiritual DESIRE to be reborn into christian truth. the catholic church teaches that if the sacrament cannot possibly be physically carried out before death, but a person desires it with their heart that it is done for them in spirit.

Moreover, Paul told the church in Ephesus: “8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast” Ephesians 2:8-9.

why are protestants always dishonest about the bible? is it that you dont actually read the bible, or is it that you intentionally decieve to support man-made traditions? why dont you continue with ephesians 2:10 which clearly states "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

This clearly illustrates how WRONG you are in your interpretation. Paul, in the verse you quoted, isnt speaking about works of christian faith, he is speaking about works of mosaic law (re: circumcision). what paul REALLY says is that the gentiles will no longer be known by the fact that they do not have works of mosaic law (ie-- are uncircumcised) but will be known by the fact that by faith they have been called TO GOOD WORKS.

If that were not convincing enough, consider the following passage, Romans 3:23-28

i cut out the passage, because we've already read it. however, i wanted you to know that i did consider it, in fact, i flipped open my protestant version of the KJV (which i keep around to use so that you can't say that the catholic church changed it) and i read the passage in context. what do i find? oh yes, once again paul is not talking about GOOD WORKS, the works of christian faith... oh no, paul is REALLY talking about the DIRECT ACT of circumcision and following the codes of the mosaic law.

with this in mind, come to think of it... for so many thousands of years of social conditioning, the formerly jewish christians must have had a hard time leaving that law behind. its no wonder, then, that paul had to repeatedly note that men should not be judged by whether or not they were circumcised but rather by their good works and faith... especially since each letter was addressed to a different peoples. How strange that what he said to the former jews today is now used against his church in a way which is taken completely out of context.

The Roman Catholic Church declares itself to be the church that Jesus started 2000 years ago.

once again, i told that there are no roman catholics here. there are very few ROMAN catholics in the world (those who live in the city of Rome being the exception). we are the CATHOLIC church that Jesus started 2000 years ago. most of us, although not all, belong to the LATIN rite (aka the Roman rite) of the CATHOLIC church.

It further pronounces that the church never changes its dogmatic teachings. With this in mind we, once again, can examine the teachings of the Catholic Church today and prove they do not resemble the first century church. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see:

funny thing, i've travelled, i've been to rome, i've been to trier, and MANY places. I've read inscriptions on walls, and seen paintings. I've walked the catecombs and been on the road that peter walked to leave rome before deciding to turn back and be crucified. I've been in ancient churches buried under the current city of rome, i've read prayers made by penitents to the graves of their ancestors. what makes you qualified as a master of the first century church. i would doubt that off the top of your head you even know the name of peter's successor, the second pope. so, master of history, lets see what you have to say about the first century church and your imperceptions of the bible:

• Priests offering sacrifices for sins •

first, Christ, being our high priest and perfect example of saintly life, offered a sacrifice for our sins. in fact, this sacrifice is not only mentioned once in the bible, but four times in four different books. i'm surprised you missed it.

second, priests dont make a sacrifice for our sins today. they REPRESENT the sacrifice that Christ made... ONE sacrifice for all time brought to us in the Holy mass.

Indulgences remitting punishment for sins •

indulgences do not remit the punishment for sin, the punishment for sin is death, and that punishment has already been levied against the Son of God. indulgences are a PENANCE (and no, they dont remit penance, they ARE penance). they show our contrition for our sin, our sorrow that it is our sinful nature that is a part of why Christ died on the cross.

Prayers for souls in purgatory •

well, no, you cut those parts out of your bible to make it suit your man-made traditions. HOWEVER, in rome, just above the entrance to the catecombs is a wall remaining from a feast house. on the wall are prayers inscribed for the dead in the catecombs. while most are prayers FOR the dead, some are prayers TO the dead. my favorite was: San Petro e Paolo precare quo victor. (my recolection of the spelling and exact words may be a bit off) The translation to english is "saints peter and paul, pray for victor." this means that, on this wall with all the prayers FOR the dead, and asking intercession for saints, by 300 ad (the date of the inscription i mentioned) the early christians already prayed for the dead and asked for prayers from the saints. in case, master of history, you didnt know, thats a full 95 years before the bible was begun to be compiled.

Church leaders forbidden to marry •

hogwash, not one of the disciples married. FURTHER, Christ tells us that unless a man gives up EVERYTHING (re: marrying too, being a part of everything) he CANNOT be a disciple.

Infallible men •

i hope, of course, that you mean there are no infallable men in the new testament ASIDE FROM JESUS. i can't believe the heresy that just randomly slips from your mouth... i'll assume that its by accident. HOWEVER, i concur that aside from Christ there have been no infallable men. CONTRARIWISE, the catholic church has never claimed that there were. what IS claimed is that even sinning men, granted the powers of the vicar of Christ, can be protected by the Holy Spirit in such a way that they can have infallable teachings. if you cannot recognize this fact, then you must doubt even your own authority to interpret scripture, and where does that leave you??? up a river, to tell you the truth.

Salvation dispensed through sacraments •

hogwash. Christ attended marraiges, Christ taught that we must confess our sins. He taught that we must be baptized and confirmed to recieve eternal life (born again through water and spirit). He taught that we MUST eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. He taught that we MUST minister to the sick, poor, and downtrodden (whatsoever you do to the least of My people, that you do unto Me...). what part of the sacraments DONT you see in the bible. again, i am led to believe that you only know of the bible what was told to you by your minister, and have never actually bothered to read it.


you are correct, the rosary wasnt available for us at the time. HOWEVER, praying the rosary is a great medition on the life of Christ, but not necessary for the salvation of ones soul... kind of how you view communion, not necessary (although, in that regard you are incorrect).


AH, though, see, history master, we must turn away from the scriptures and into reality. rome has all sorts of religious relics which include items of jewelry such as what are now known today as scapulars. Small round neclaces bearing the picture of recently dead fellows, who are now known as saints. the practice of scapulars is not new, it dates back to the early church... but you knew that, history master, because you've been to rome and seen the early churches, right?

holy water,

Contrariwise (forgive me, i'm working on "Through the Looking Glass, and Tweedledee seems to like that word alot) Holy water is in alot of places in the bible. in fact, the river where Christ was baptised was considered to be a source of Holy Water. but then again, you knew that the jews considered that river to be sacred, right?


another accidental heresy, or did you intentionally forget the one crucifix that matters... Christ on His cross?


not at first, no. the church couldnt afford them originally. what passed in the early church were paintings on walls and detailed diatribes. by the third century the church was producing busts and sculptures, more than 100 years before the bible was compiled.

My suggestion to you, nolan, is that you read the bible, and then read the catechism of the catholic church with an open mind, and then come to us with your questions of what you dont understand (and believe me, there is alot). Once you have done this, if you still disagree, then i will entertain the idea that you have valid points to make. as long as it seems that little old me has a better grasp of the bible and the catholic church than you do, then i will dismiss your arguements as useless dribble.

-- paul h (, July 21, 2004.

Paul h,

Hey Mr. "I know the bible better than you," let's show some mutual Christian respect. "Do to others what you would have them do to you." (Matt 7:12) Even if you were wrong, wouldn't you want to be corrected in a respectful manner?

"hogwash, not one of the disciples married. FURTHER, Christ tells us that unless a man gives up EVERYTHING (re: marrying too, being a part of everything) he CANNOT be a disciple."


Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned in the gospels. (Mk 1:30; Mt 8:14; Lk 4:38.) Also, 1 Cor 9:5 shows clearly that some of the disciples including Peter did get married.

-- Kin Juh (, July 21, 2004.

As a Protestant I was shocked to learn that Augustine was CATHOLIC! That same great man I had heard so much about. And yet he believed in purgatory, he venerated the saints, he thought Mary to be sinless. HOW COULD THIS BE? And yet it is so.

For we find from Augustine that he identifies himself most notably with this one particular Church; that one, holy and apostolic Catholic Church:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298


Now, as a Catholic, I can say that I am part of that one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, the one formed out of dust by my Lord and Savior, the one lead, taught and protected by the Holy Spirit for over 2,000 years.

God Bless,


P.S. Great answer Paul h!!! Oh, here's a challenge to my Protestant friends coming here to this forum: Where in scripture does it ever say that you are saved by "faith alone"? Of course, you cannot find that scripture but you can find a scripture that says "ye are NOT saved by faith alone."

-- Gail (, July 21, 2004.

I am someone who admits when I've learnt something and what I've realized is that in terms of faith and works, Catholics and Protestants are saying the same thing in different words. My favorite Protestant paradox is:

"You are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone."

A Catholics might say:

"You can't be saved by just accepting Jesus as your Savior, you have to accept Him as your Lord and Savior."

We all mean the same thing. I believes that God knows this and He alone will judge us. The grace of God alone is what will save us.

-- Kin Juh (, July 21, 2004.

"You can't be saved by just accepting Jesus as your Savior, you have to accept Him as your Lord and Savior."

A: I believe both Catholics and Protestants would fully agree with the above statement. Perhaps a more accurate statement of the Catholic position would be - "You can't be saved by just accepting Jesus as your Savior, you also have to live as though you accepted Him".

-- Paul M. (, July 21, 2004.

We all mean the same thing. I believes that God knows this and He alone will judge us. The grace of God alone is what will save us.

***Hopefully we will not disappoint Him by believing in all else that was brought about by MEN. Our Faith existed as only one, and God did not intend for us to be divided by this. We are all ONE and the ONLY faith is to be CATHOLIC.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (, July 21, 2004.


A Sacramental Life in the Catholic Church is what humanity is called to. This Sacramental Life pivots around the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. In order to properly receive this Sacrament and the grace that comes with receiving the Body and Blood of Christ into ourselves, we must live faithful lives in obedience to His Will. That is more than just accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior but also holding ourselves accountable whenever we sin and fall from grace. It is the Communion of the individual, the Church, and God - the call of Unity!

God bless,

-- Vincent (, July 22, 2004.

kin juh,

simon married BEFORE becoming a disciple. Paul (in the bible) mentions that some apostles were married (not disciples, i thought you knew the difference) and that peter had been previously married. historical context teaches us that no disciple got married (simon not being a disciple at the time).

second, yes, i am harsh on nolan. here's why: he did not come here with an open mind and an open heart to learn. he came here with the attitude that he knows the bible and the catholic church better than we do, and that he can teach us. now he knows differently and understands that catholics arent poor unthinking sheep. its a tough job, but i have to make him realize that in regards to the catholic church and what catholics believe, he is not an expert by any means

-- paul h (, July 22, 2004.

Dear Brother Paul,

I think its quite obvious as you claimed that you and the catholic church are best equiped to understand and interpret the bible, and us non-catholics are clearly loss in our understanding.

I pray every day that the Holy Spirit will guide me when i read Gods Word.

I dont care about doctrines, rituals and traditions, even religion, because all these have been influenced and changed by man. I care about having a personal and close relationship with Jesus, He will save me and grant me wisdom to understand the things the human me can not understand, i dont need pastors or catholic priest.

Give me a verse were Jesus, or His apostles instructs us to ask Mary, mother of human Jesus, to intercede on our behalf. Why cant we pray to Him directly...


-- Nolan (, July 22, 2004.

i see that i have pushed the pendulum too far...

nolan, peace be with you. i do not mean to say that you have no qualification whatsoever towards understanding the bible, or to say that i myself am any more capable than you are.

my only goal was to get you to realize that there are MANY MANY catholics who know exactly what they believe and why. i dont ask you to humble yourself before us, but instead to at least be civil by not attacking our church in our forum. if you have questions, please feel free to ask them openly, but we get enough of protestants trying to teach us every day that here it is nice to have a place to discuss what we believe.

God bless

-- paul h (, July 22, 2004.

Subject: Response to Dont be afraid to ask questions...

"your response to my question, gave me the impression that only those in the Catholic Church can interpret the bible"   A: The New Testament is a collection of writings of the early Catholic Church, compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church under the authority of the Catholic Church, for use by the Catholic Church. Who else would be qualified to interpret it? Besides it is apparent that Jesus didn't intend any other Church to interpret His Word, because He stated clearly that He never intended any other Christian church to exist. Surely the fact that Protestant interpretations of scripture consistently conflict with and contradict one another is clear evidence that they cannot accurately interpret scripture!

Nolan: My Brother, I am sorry to inform you that the Word is not the sole property of the catholic church. The Word was wriiten for sinners like you and me, you do not need to be catholic or have a formal education to understand or interpret the Word. Understanding comes from the Holy Spirit, not from the catholic church or even from the protestant church. I would encourage catholics to read and understanding the Word for themself and not rely on your interpretation alone. They themself would raise the same question i do....   "One of my biggest problem with the Catholic Church, is when they lie to people that Mary can intervene and get them to heaven, when the bible says otherwise, or have I misinterpreted the Bible"   A: Actually your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church has never suggested that Mary can "intervene and get anyone into heaven". Whether you get to heaven depends on whether you spend your earthly life accepting Christ or rejecting Him. Mary does however intercede for us because she is a Christian, and all Christians are intercessors. Haven't you even offered prayers to God on behalf of another? Asked God to help a friend who was going through a rough time? If you have, then you were interceding for that person. If you can intercede, as an earthly sinner, certainly those Christians who are now before the throne of God can do so far more efficiently, perfectly, and powerfully. If you think the Bible says otherwise, then yes, you have misinterpreted it, because it says no such thing.

A. I myself, pray from my friends and family, But never have i ever prayed to a “friend” and asked him to interceded on my behalf. Never have i pray Hail Robert or Hail Peter. The Word tells me "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". Give us a scripture where Jesus tells us to ask Mary to intercede on our behalf. Is Jesus too busy to listen to our prayers   "Another issue is that I can not go to heaven by Grace alone, when the bible I read tells me otherwise."   A: Again, you waste your time attacking non-existent teachings. In fact the supposed teaching you attack here is the exact OPPOSITE of the Church's actual teaching. The Catholic Church teaches, consistently and explicitly, that salvation is BY GRACE ALONE. The dangerous heresy that the founders of Protestantism introduced is that salvation is by FAITH alone, irrespective of anything we do or don't do. The Bible however reflects the teaching of the Church that compiled it - that faith alone, in the absence of works, cannot save anyone. But, grace alone is the source of both the faith and the works of Christian charity that are required for salvation. Therefore salvation is by grace alone.   Nolan: We all believe faith without works is dead, and if we say Lord, Lord, then we must do what He says...and He instructs us to do good works. But thats what makes becoming a Chirstian differents, that when Jesus forgives us, all our previous sin is forgiven, our past is wiped clean, both “small and big sins”. He say that we become a new man. But Chirst also die not only for our past sins but also for our future sins that we are going to commit, for we are human. This you, would regard as a license to sin. But its not, it just show us that God created us and He knows us, our strenghts and weakness, and he loves us so much that he will forgive matter how bad or big the sin is. If I were to kill every memeber of your family, how much of good works would redeem my murders, (NONE)...only Jesus can forgive and save you....NO strings attached.

(Titus 3:5-6 KJV) (5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (6) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

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

(Romans 10:9 KJV) (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

(2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV) (17) Therefore if any man {be} in Christ, {he is} a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

(2 Timothy 1:9 KJV) (9) Who hath saved us, and called {us} with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

"My brother in Chirst, seek your understanding from our Heaven father, for He is the author of ALL THINGS. Do not look to man, or women, or their traditions".   A: Right! Which is why it is contrary to God's plan to follow the traditions of Luther or Wesley or Calvin or Henry VIII or Knox or Brown or Lindley or Booth or any of the other human founders of denominational religion, instead of following the one true Church Jesus Christ founded for all men.

Nolan: One must NEVER follow man or his traditions, including the names that you mention above. But it is odd, coming from the catholic church, where the pope, and priest are held in such high authority...I know you say that they are God’s representive on earth, BUT dont we all represent God. Is the pope not just a man, a man who is a sinner like you and me. Why do you treat people who ask question with such disgust. Am I condemed to hell because I question the catholic faith.   "To even suggest that anyone, even Mary the human mother of Jesus, participates in dispensing the gift of eternal life is not only heresy, it is blasphemous."   A: Mary does not "dispense eternal life". Where did you get that? She intercedes on our behalf. Eternal life is "dispensed" by GOD. Mary is HUMAN.

Nolan: Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, not the mother of God. Jesus was 1 part man and 1 part God. Jesus, our God did not orginate in the womb of Mary, and there has no part of Mary, therefore Mary can not be called mother of God. She was a sinner just all of us, that why she had to die, (for the wages of sin is death). In fact, apart from Acts 1:14, Mary is not mentioned anywhere outside the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).  Even in the Gospels, her spiritual power and authority are almost non- existent.  Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other biblical writer ever gave Mary the place or devotion that the Catholic Church has given her.  The New Testament epistles (letters) were written for the spiritual guidance of the Church, and have a great deal to say about doctrine and worship.  Her absence from the epistles must then call into doubt the role that Catholics ascribe to her.    "As for the Catholic view of Mary as Mediatrix, let me refer you to: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

A: The Bible also says there is only one teacher. However, every denomination has teachers. The understanding is that their teaching is subservient to the teaching of the One Teacher. In the same way, there was one work of Mediation, which took place on the Cross, and which reinstated the relationship between God and man which had been broken by the sin of Adam and Eve. That was THE work of Mediation. Any ministry of mediation, or teaching, or healing, or counseling that is done by members of His Church is subject to and subservient to the One Mediator, One Teacher, One Healer, and One Counselor.

Sorry my Brother, even a simple man such as I can interprete what this verse says, dont need no church to twist and explain it.

"He claimed to be the ONLY way to God Not one of several ways, but the one and only way. Not to teach the way, but to be the way to God. Nobody has ever made claims like that before and backed them, but Jesus did through his love, balanced life, and miracles".

A: Agreed. He also said that there was to be ONE Church and that all men were to become disciples of it.

Nolan: Are we not the Church of Chirst, all those who accept Jesus as our Saviour, rather than an organization like what the Roman’s created in the form of the catholic church.

  "If good works and participation in the sacraments were necessary for salvation and justification, then Jesus lied to the criminal on the cross next to Him when he said, ?Today, you will be with me in Paradise.?

A: Nonsense. When this man accepted Christ, He accepted the whole package - faith in Christ, commitment to a life of service, and membership in the Church. It wasn't his fault that circumstances prevented him from ever growing in faith as the Bible requires. It also wasn't his fault that circumstances prevented him from actively living out his new commitment to following Christ in a life of service and charity as the Bible requires. He did all that he could do in his allotted lifespan after coming to Christ. That's all Christ asks of any of us.

Nolan: He accepted Christ as his Saviour....FULL STOP. Jesus didnt make any pre-condition. Thats when he was born-again, made a new man. When we form a relationship with Jesus, we will do the things He ask of us, not for our salvation sake, but because as Christians we must relfect Christ likeness.

I do not want to convert catholics to protestants, but in order for people to make choices, they must be given choices. I was given a choice and i made one, like wise people must be given all views and interpretions....and with the help of God, they must make a choice.

-- Nolan (, July 22, 2004.

Hi Nolan,

You are right that men are free to read the Bible and interpret it. The problem is, of course, that for centuries since the reformational break from the Church, that men have created their own "pet" doctrines (as I call them) and gathered followers in accordance to the latest fad or "new thing." Just turn on TBN and you will see this concept drawn out to its logical conclusion . . . which is utter chaos.

Sensationalistic fad doctrines fill Christian book stores. People are being led off by the MILLIONS into an absolute doctrinal cesspool of flagrant apostacy. And yet who is to stop them? NO ONE!

Christ did not intend this. He created one Church with a governing and teaching authority. That Church is like a boat of safety from the wild winds and waves that are presently rocking our world.

Jesus is paramount. He is the Lord and He is the Savior. But he committed his followers to ONE Church, not thousands to pick from according to one's own fancy or theological bent. That would be, and is, ABSURD!

God Bless,


-- Gail (, July 22, 2004.

"I do not want to convert catholics to protestants, but in order for people to make choices, they must be given choices."


Since you are a "Bible Christian", could you direct me to a biblical verse which says Christians are to have a "choice" in what Church they belong to?? In my Bible, the word "Church" is always preceded by "the", indicating that there was only ONE. Which is hardly surprising since Jesus specifically said there was to be only ONE Church.

-- Paul M. (, July 22, 2004.

"I do not want to convert catholics to protestants, but in order for people to make choices, they must be given choices." Nolan,

Since you are a "Bible Christian", could you direct me to a biblical verse which says Christians are to have a "choice" in what Church they belong to?? In my Bible, the word "Church" is always preceded by "the", indicating that there was only ONE. Which is hardly surprising since Jesus specifically said there was to be only ONE Church.

Paul, I think Nolan was referring to the fact that we ought to come to faith not under force from man, but by willingly responding to the Holy Spirit. At the end of the day, a protestant man can say this is what the bible says, what history teaches, and what the church is, and a roman catholic can say otherwise.

Which ever way one goes, should certainly not be under coersion from one side or the other but as a result of opening oneself to God, emptying oneself of all preoccupations, and praying desperately for God to shine the truth upon us. I believe God honours the prayers of those who desperately seek them, moreso than the actions of one who just nods their head in agreement without real seeking and searching.

-- Oliver Fischer (, July 23, 2004.

My brother Oliver,

Our wisdom comes from our Heaven Father, if we think we are smart because of our standing in society, qualification, church, organization, title etc, we are surely fools.

My brother, I am glad at least one person on this forum understands what I was trying to say. You sumed up my exactly what I am saying

There many things in the bible I dont understand, and I would rather admit I dont understand, than fool myself to believing some one else understanding or interpretations. I pray every day that God blesses me with wisdom and that He fills me with the Holy Spirit, so that my relationship with Jesus becomes a very personal one via His Word.

God gave us free will, the will to choose, the will to sin or serve him. He created Adam with free will because he wanted a friend, not a Robot.

My Brother Paul, you and I disagree on alot issues, But I never once told you that you have personal interpretation of the Bible was wrong. I rather stated how I understand and interpreted the Bible.

I hope that your personal relationship Jesus, will allow you to follow Him directly, and not via intercessor or churches. He is a jealous God and I would think He would be very upset if we choose not to talk to Him directly. Seek Jesus, dont let youself be yoked by tradition.

Truth from the Bible about finding the Will of God

(James 1:5 KJV) (5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all {men} liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

(Psalms 32:8 KJV) (8) I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.

(Psalms 119:105 KJV) (105) Thy word {is} a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

(Proverbs 6:22-23 KJV) (22) When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and {when} thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. (23) For the commandment {is} a lamp; and the law {is} light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

(Joshua 1:8 KJV) (8) This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

(Isaiah 30:21 KJV) (21) And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This {is} the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

(Psalms 48:14 KJV) (14) For this God {is} our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide {even} unto death.

(Proverbs 16:3 KJV) (3) Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.

(Psalms 37:23 KJV) (23) The steps of a {good} man are ordered by the Lord: and he delighteth in his way.

(Psalms 31:3 KJV) (3) For thou {art} my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

(Nehemiah 9:20 KJV) (20) Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst.

(Proverbs 3:5-6 KJV) (5) Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (6) In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

(Isaiah 48:17 KJV) (17) Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I {am} the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way {that} thou shouldest go.

(Isaiah 58:11 KJV) (11) And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

(John 16:13 KJV) (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, {that} shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

-- Jesus is the Lover of my soul. (, July 23, 2004.

"My Brother Paul, you and I disagree on alot issues, But I never once told you that you have personal interpretation of the Bible was wrong."

A: Actually Nolan, you can't tell me that, because I don't base my faith on personal interpretations of the Bible, but on the infallible teaching of the Church which compiled the Bible. If I relied on my own personal interpretations, I would just be one more drifting denomination, one more fracture in what God desired to be whole and united.

"I hope that your personal relationship Jesus, will allow you to follow Him directly, and not via intercessor or churches."

A: That is not possible. Jesus founded a Church as the ONLY valid means of knowing Him and following Him. If you leave His Church, you are following someone else, even though you might be very sincere in your intention of following Him.

"He is a jealous God and I would think He would be very upset if we choose not to talk to Him directly"

A: Asking others to pray for you is not something you do INSTEAD of talking to God directly. Rather it is a way of MULTIPLYING your prayers to God. If you are concerned about His being a jealous God, I would give serious thought to how He might respond when you tell Him you decided to reject the Church He founded, in favor of a church founded by men.

-- Paul M. (, July 23, 2004.

Dear Nolan:
You say, ''Our wisdom comes from our Heaven Father, if we think we are smart because of our standing in society, qualification, church, organization, title etc, we are surely fools.''

Surely you must know our Almighty Father hasn't given wisdom to all his children in equal ortions. Yet He desires all men to be saved; both the wise and the unlearned and mentally deficient.

So that it does not come down to wisdom alone. It has more to do with grace; and all grace is from Christ alone. He has won it all by His merits on the cross. He dispenses His grace to all-- not just the smart, or for our standing in society, qualifications, etc. In fact, being a ''fool'' doesn't lose you salvation.

Fools can often enough read a bible. but when they manage, it makes mostly for foolish interpretation of the Word. You know this, because people like David Koresh, Rev. Jim Jones, Mary Baker Eddy, so-and-so Russell, who founded the Jehovah's Witnesses- - all claimed to understand scripture. but they didn't.

Jesus Christ knew that not all would understand. He gave us His Holy Church. There He installed the authorized interpretors of the Word of God. In fact they-- who made up the fledgling Catholic Church; committed the Word to written scripture. Otherwise you wouldn't have a Holy Bible to read. No matter how great your wisdom.

If you care to try; why don't you find any word in the Bible where Jesus prophesied how His ONLY Church would become a ''reformed'' Church? A better church than the one He gave us with Peter and the apostles. Find something; since you can pray and get the straight story directly from God. This is not a challenge. It asks you the favor; since you figure we follow the wrong way. ''. . . we think we are smart because of our standing in society, qualification, Church.''

-- eugene c. chavez (, July 23, 2004.

“1 Cor 9:5 shows clearly that some of the disciples including Peter did get married.” -- Kin Juh

It shows nothing of the kind. It defends Paul and Barnabas against criticism of their being supported, like the other apostles, by both male and female companions and helpers supplied at the expense of the Church. Paul clearly states elsewhere in several places that he is not married, and apparently neither was Barnabas, so to try to put this meaning on it would be absurd. The word used means “woman, female companion, sister”.

-- Steve (, July 23, 2004.

Also, the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law only indicates that he had been married at some time in the past. He may well have been a widower when he was called by Christ, especially since his wife is never mentioned.

-- Paul M. (, July 23, 2004.

Paul h,

Please could you give your definitions of the words "apostle" and "disciple." I was always under the impression that "apostle" was more specific to the Twelve (although sometimes used more generally) and "disciple" was usually used to mean follower as in "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19.) "Christ tells us that unless a man gives up EVERYTHING (re: marrying too, being a part of everything) he CANNOT be a disciple." I guess the Twelve failed in their mission to make disciples of all nations since most Christians (probably including you) are married.

However, you cannot deny Nolan's point that the bible never FORBIDS church leaders to marry. In fact, "Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, MARRIED only once" (1 Tim 3:2) suggests that celibacy was not a requirement and some even interpret it to mean that marriage was a requirement.

The biblical reasons for celibacy are Mt 19:12 and 1 Cor 7:32-33 but it is never stated as a requirement for a church leader.

In my opinion, celibacy is not a bad thing but it's not a reason why I would remain a Catholic nor a reason why I would become a Protestant. It has it's pros and cons. The pros are that priests can concentrate fully on God's work and not be distracted with family issues. The cons are that he can sometimes be isolated from his community, not as well equipped as a married man to give advice on family life and then there are, of course, all those horrible child abuse issues.


I didn't say that Paul was married, I said that Peter was married. I've checked in a lot of Bibles including Catholic ones and they all use the word "wife." Also, the fact that there is no mention of male companions - only female ones - gives further evidence that "wife" is the correct meaning in this context.

Paul m,

Peter's wife is never mentioned but in such a male-dominated society that isn't really significant. Even Mary isn't mentioned that often.

-- Kin Juh (, July 23, 2004.

“I've checked in a lot of Bibles including Catholic ones and they all use the word "wife." Also, the fact that there is no mention of male companions - only female ones - gives further evidence that "wife" is the correct meaning in this context.”

Well all the Bibles you have checked must have been tampered with. You obviously haven’t checked the standard Protestant version, the King James version. It refers to “a sister, a wife” (with the note “or woman”) and “the brethren”. The protestant Good News Bible refers to “a Christian wife”, that is, a married woman, married to somebody else. Jerusalem Bible says “a Christian woman”.

Read the WHOLE paragraph and its context. The whole point Paul is making is that he and Barnabas should not have to work for a living but should be supported by the Church, just as the other apostles are, because they are working full-time for it. It has NOTHING to do with any supposed right or duty or desirability for an apostle or priest to be married.

Peter's wife is not omitted because of a male dominated society. The New Testament writers FLOUTED the male dominance of their society. Many times they mention married women by name without even referring to their husbands. Other times, both husband and wife are named. Paul says, "in Christ there is no male nor female". You are grasping at straws.

"those horrible child abuse issues" - you are either very ignorant or deliberately offensive. Most child abusers are married or are in a sexual relationship with an adult. The proportion of child abusers among the clergy of churches with married clergy is the same or even higher as the proportion of clerical abusers in churches requiring celibate clergy.

Priestly celibacy, btw is a matter of church discipline, not doctrine, so it is immaterial to your claim that the Bible contradicts some Church DOCTRINES. The Church has permitted married priests in the past (though celibate priests have always been preferred) and in theory it could allow them at some time in future.

-- Steve (, July 24, 2004.


Yes, I agree that the main purpose of the paragraph is that Paul and Barnabas should not have to work for a living but in making that point Paul also mentions that he had a right to take a wife and bring her on his journeys with him as Peter and the other apostles did. I am not aware of this Good News Bible being tampered with but it says "Don't I have the right to follow the example of the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter, by taking a Christian wife with me on my trips?" Surely it is more likely that he is talking about taking a wife of his own rather than a woman married to someone else. The Greek word "gune" is often used to mean "wife" in the bible. For instance, in Mt 14:3 "For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife."

Paul doesn't seem to be flounting male dominance here: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 1 Tim 2:11-14 I think it's bit extreme to say that I'm grasping at straws.

Please could you back up your facts about child abuse among clergy with sources. As far as I am aware, there is no conclusive data on the issue.

I did not say that priestly celibacy was a doctrine. It was Paul h who implied that. I merely said that the Bible does not forbid church leaders to marry. However, I do not think that the Bible should contradict "matters of church discipline" either.

-- Kin Juh (, July 24, 2004.

I did not say that priestly celibacy was a doctrine. It was Paul h who implied that.

please dont put words in my mouth. i never implied that celibacy in the priesthood was a doctrine... i merely established the fact that your claim that celebacy disciplines have changed is not factual.

FURTHER, the bible does not state that clergy SHOULD marry. ALL that is stated is that IF the clergy IS allowed to marry, then they should only be allowed to have one wife. the church decided, nearly from day one, that celebacy was the preferable policy... in fact, this policy astonished people in the roman empire, but the story of san clemente is for another day.

finally, in regards to child molestation... every stranger you meet has a higher percentage chance of being a child molestor than a catholic priest does. dont tell the media this, their hollywood production might go awry. someone quoted statistics on this already here, and i hope they will do so again. you are incorrect, however, in your assessment that no reliable statistic exists. there are statistics on the relation between gambling and the gay population of native americans in california, so i guaruntee that something like this didnt slip by.

-- paul h (, July 24, 2004.

“The Greek word "gune" is often used to mean "wife" in the bible.” Only where it fits the context. I’m not a scholar of ancient Greek but I believe that, like French ("femme"), it uses the same word (“gune”, from which we get words like “gynecology”) for both “wife” and “woman”. Which one it is translated as depends on the context. Until a century or so ago it was common even in English for “a wife” to mean simply “a woman”, and this is reflected in the older English bible translations (and maintained in this verse in some modern translations by those with an agenda to push) . Paul speaks of “a Christian wife”. If he had been speaking about a particular woman married to him, he would have said “MY wife” or “a wife of MINE”. And yes ancient Greek DOES have a word for "my/mine", but Paul did NOT use it here.

1 Tim 2:11-14 (which some protestants misuse to supposedly justify forcing women to obey their husbands, and banning women from teaching or having authority over men) are not the result of conforming to a male-dominated society. Except for Judaism (which was insignificant in the area where Timothy was) and Christianity, ALL other religions of that time had priestesses, who outnumbered their priests.

Re sexual abuse, some people have been duped into thinking that it's a much bigger problem among Catholic clergy than among others, because the Catholic church is so huge in comparison to any other church or organisation in the world, and because clergy of other churches (and people in other professions like teachers) come and go rather than stay for life. In the US the media presents "clerical abuse" as an overwhelmingly Catholic story, but in other countries there are much bigger problems with clergy of the Anglican communion and others which have married clergy. And both in the US and worldwide there are a greater proportion of child abusers among lay people than among the clergy of any religion.

Of course the priesthood SHOULD be the very last place we find sexual abuse, and the Church is doing its level best to prevent and eliminate it, without help from the media,lawyers, (and some bogus "victims"), motivated only by greed and sectarian hatred.

-- Steve (, July 25, 2004.

Child molestion happens in all sectors of society, including the ONE TRUE CHURCH, the catholic church. What is the official position of the catholic church, regarding a priest who is involved in child molestion.


-- Nolan (, July 26, 2004.


I'm have a biblical justification for everything you believe so where in the Bible does it specifically say that every sin we commit in the FUTURE is already forgiven?

-- Kin Juh (, July 26, 2004.

My brother, Kin Juh

(Matthew 18:21-22 KJV) (21) Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? (22) Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

My brother, if Jesus, can ask of Peter to forgive his brother, “seventy times seven”, how much more, He as our loving and Heavenly Father will forgive us. This doesnt mean we have a license to sin when ever we want, as some people may interpret it as. His Word says how can we call Lord, Lord, and do not do what He say...meaning if we love Him, we must live according to His Word. God created us, He knows our strenghts, our weakness...and He knows as humans, we are bound to sins again. He wants us to know that He is a loving and forgiving God, and He will never leave or forsake matter what.

Always think about this as well...Jesus not only died physically on the cross - He also died spiritually! While Jesus hung there, God the Father reached back in time and took the spiritual death (SIN) that had been generated by Adam and those who came after him and placed it on Jesus Christ. Then (because He created time and lives outside of it) God looked forward in time and took all the spiritual death generated by you and me and all the other men and women who will be born until the end of time and put that death penalty on Jesus too....

This is what i feel....but maybe i am wrong.

-- Nolan (, July 27, 2004.

It is because of that salvific act of Jesus Christ that it is POSSIBLE for our sins, present and future, to be forgiven. But actual forgiveness requires repentance. Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is that everyone gets a free ticket to heaven, and we know that is not so.

-- Paul M. (, July 27, 2004.

So are you saying that you can repent for your future sins, paul m?

-- Kin Juh (, July 27, 2004.

I have deleted one of Nolan's posts. It was taken (without credit given) from an article written by Mike Gendron entitled interestingly enough: "Is it Called Catholic Bashing".

Nolan, you are quickly wearing out your welcome here. Catholic bashing is not permitted, especially when it is intermixed with plagerism. The only reason you have not been asked to leave this forum as yet, is I have received no complaints to date about your misinformation, accusations and insults to our faith.


-- Ed (, July 27, 2004.

Kin -

No, we cannot repent now for our future sins. Because of the redeeming act of Christ, we can repent and be forgiven for our present sins now - and we can repent and be forgiven for our future sins after we commit them.

angel -

Why MUST we repent, confess, and be forgiven daily, if it has nothing to do with our salvation? The only things Christ said we MUST do are things which impact upon our chances of receiving salvation. If ongoing forgiveness doesn't affect our salvation, then it really doesn't matter whether we do it or not, because in the long run, salvation is all that matters.

-- Paul M. (, July 27, 2004.

Hi Paul. I noted your comment at the end that in the long run, salvation is all that really matters.

Absolutely no offense is intended toward you or anyone else in my response but I feel that such concepts are unfortunate ones that many people cling to. I know what you are trying to convey, which is the critical importance of being saved. Yes I agree with you, but I would say that it is not the only thing that matters. There are many things that are as important I would say, this includes : 1. The uprightness of God's throne, through the fulfillment of His promises. 2. The accomplishment of His eternal economy - To be fully expressed through man as His corporate vessel, to shine out His glory as a testimony of God and Man as one organic divine and human incorporation.

So what I'm trying to say is that we ought to shift our focus from ourselves and our salvation to God's heart, His throne, His economy.

-- Oliver Fischer (, July 27, 2004.

Going back to how non-Christians can be saved.

How can that be consistent with:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

-- Kin Juh (, July 29, 2004.

Scripture also says ... "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14) This passage says that "believing" cannot happen except as a response to hearing. Therefore those who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the truth cannot be held responsible for failing to respond to it. We know that God is all-just. Justice dictates that a person is not punished for a situation in which he had absolutely no choice. Therefore, in light of this reality, Mark 16:16 has to be interpreted as a commentary on believing vs. hard-hearted refusal to believe - not on believing vs. never having the opportunity to believe.

-- Paul M. (, July 29, 2004.

Andrew, I've deleted your recent post which included real names of individuals other than yourself. You may resubmit the post minus any direct personal references to others.


-- Ed (, July 30, 2004.

I have a Buddhist friend from Vietnam. Whenever I mentioned the word God to her she didn't want to listen so I didn't force it but the other day she brought up the topic and gave me a chance to tell her what Christians believe. I was surprised to find out that she literally knew nothing about Christianity - not even the basics like Jesus is God, Jesus died to save us from our sins and He rose so that we may have eternal life. When I told her this she "hard-heartedly refused to believe" me. So what you're saying is that I am now responsible for her losing her salvation by trying to spread the Word of God because if it weren't for me she would still be invincibly ignorant.

How can you take Rom 10:14 out of context like that? Paul answers the question he asks:

But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." Rom 10:18

And it's true especially of Muslims. Most educated non-Christians especially Muslims are fully aware of what we believe. In fact, the reason why Muslims believe we're all going to hell is because we "worship a man" which to them is idolatry since they believe that Jesus was "just a great prophet."

-- Kin Juh (, July 30, 2004.

I'm disappointed in you guys. You abandoned me. You didn't answer me. I'm also disappointed because you obviously don't know the CCC well enough and you obviously know even less about Islam. The CCC says that the reason why Muslims have a part in salvation is because they claim to have the faith of Abraham. I thought someone would bring up this point but it still leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, they still do reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

-- Kin Juh (, August 01, 2004.

I think you misunderstand Invencible Ignorance.

ZI think that your friend couidl only knwo salvation if she tried to Serve God, but did not know how.

What you are describing is a situation where she did NOT want to serve God to begin with.She was nto saved in her earlier condition, as she was not living for God or striving for him in any way, shaoe, or form.

Invincible ignorance des not work simpley because they do not know, Invincible ignorance woks only when tey dont know but try to know or do anyway that which brigns them to God.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 01, 2004.

YOU obviously know little about Islam, Kin Juh. Muslims believe all non-Muslims go to Hell, but they place Jews and Christians in a special milder section of Hell. (Some Muslims consider that Jews and Christians are, in effect, “honorary” Muslims and will go to Heaven.) Muslims don’t believe Jesus was God but they believe Jesus and the Virgin Mary were without sin. And they teach that the lowest and worst part of Hell is reserved for the hypocrites of ALL religions.

-- Steve (, August 02, 2004.

Kin Juh,

Please don't take a day without replies as abandonment. Sometimes it takes a couple days for someone to reply depending on their schedule. In my experience, no one has ever been "abandoned" in this forum as long as they are seeking the truth and not just bashing someone's faith to build themselves up.

You're right about the Muslim claim to follow the same faith as Abraham. Only God can read the heart of anyone and know if they really rejected His Son, or rejected some partial or false image of His Son.

-- Andy S (""), August 02, 2004.


Why do you say that I know little about Islam? What have you said that contradicts what I said? I know what Muslims believe about Jesus but the point is that they accuse us of blasphemy because we worship a man. I admit that I wasn't aware that Allah has reserved a special place in hell for us but hell is hell and if they believe that people who worship Jesus Christ go to hell for it then they have rejected Him.

-- Kin Juh (, August 02, 2004.

I wasn’t disagreeing with you about that Kin Juh. But you accused others of being ignorant of Islam. My point is that Muslims consider that Christianity is at least half-right because they class Christians as more deserving than any other non-Muslims, and much better than hypocritical Muslims (eg those who kill innocents and claim they are defending Islam). Therefore it hardly seems right to claim that Muslims have rejected Christ MORE definitively than anybody else. After all, EVERYONE who does not believe Jesus is God therefore believes we are idolaters.

-- Steve (, August 03, 2004.

I wonder where the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Shinto, Tao, and others fit in to this world view of getting "saved" by the God.

-- music lover (, October 08, 2004.

Wel it all deepnmds on them relaly...

See, the Catholic Chruch, for instance, teahces of Invencible Ignorance. Thus, if soemoen grw up in an isolated region in india and was Hindu and never heard the Gospel, butsincerley desiredto serve God and follow him, he may still find Salvatio.

However, if you hear and reject,after fully undrstanding it, then you turn down your salvation, because you know what you are doing.

this Brief answer shodu siffice since this thread relaly sin abotu other rleigions...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 08, 2004.

"Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, you shall not have life in you"

Where do you find that except inside the Catholic church?

Al the other talk is just that, talk. Popes have solemnly declared that infidels, Jews, Muslims and others, go into hell fire, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before death.

That is why our greatet evangelists suffered to bring that message to those people.

Today with the everyone is saved ideas, we have no more evangelizing.

The idea is it's OK to stay where you are, if you are a good person. Any wonder that confession is becoming a dinosaur in most Churches.

-- Meyer (, October 09, 2004.

In fact, there are more Catholic missionaries evengelizing such peoples today than at any previous time in history.

-- Paul M. (, October 09, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ