The Quest for the Pure Faith

[@southpawhammer8644]

This is how I ended up in the assemblies of God, LOL. The 16 fundamental truths seemed like such sound "doctrine". This was years ago, but I remember wanting communion to be more after reading John 6. I am blessed that our blessed Mother led me back to the true Church.

[@catholicskeptic]

@southpawhammer8644 Welcome home to His Church, all Glory to God, and thank Him for the faithful intercession of our Blessed Mother.

[@Kitiwake]

When I was formed as a young man in the Catholic church we learned our faith in such a way that it sharpened our instincts for the faith itself as well as giving us the structures of divine and canon law. I don't remember the emphasis on the method of personal salvation being the principle reason to follow Christ and His one true church. Rather, we were taught to hope for eternal life by following the precepts and doing our best according to our level of knowledge and ability. From this I take receiving and adoration of the blessed Eucharist as often as we can, an active prayer life and acting towards our neighbor in charity.

[@catholicskeptic]

@wolfthequarrelsome... Good points , thanks.

[@ralf547]

Does an unbeliever seek to receive the sacraments often, pray to God, and strive to love their neighbor in obedience to Jesus' teachings? No they don't. These are results in your life of already being a child of God. They don't earn you salvation. Should you fall away from your life as a Christian, you would endanger your salvation.

[@bengoolie5197]

@@_ready__ "How do you receive eternal life?" That's easy! Become a Democrat. There are Democrats who have been occupying cemeteries for over 120 years, who are still voting!

[@ednewcomer]

Hugh, thank you for mentioning the importance of forgiveness & mercy. If we want God to forgive us, we must forgive others. (Matthew 6:14 -15) Yes, this is difficult to do but what a difference it makes - one will be transformed.

[@ednewcomer]

God does not count time as we do - see 2 Peter 3:8 & Psalm 102:12, 24-27. God’s perspective on time is far different from mankind’s because God is above and outside of time. Thus, a second is no different from an 1,000 years. Furthermore, God sees all of eternity’s past, present, future in an instant. We're constrained by time, but God is not because He is outside of time. Try not to place limits on God.

[@ednewcomer]

@@EPH113 Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time. This is because God's nature is eternal and therefore He is not limited by the passage of time. See Psalm 90:4: "For a thousand years in [God's] sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

[@ednewcomer]

@@EPH113 See how God now works in the present to cleanse us of our sins, 1 John 1:7 - "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." Note, this cleansing from all sin is conditional - it is only granted "if we walk in the light".

[@Davcramer]

​@@EPH113 Don't you have Protestant friends you can argue scripture with, or have they all banned you? You're not influencing Catholics with your questions and quoting of scripture, so I'm not sure what your goal is in frequenting Catholic KZbin channels.

[@ednewcomer]

@@EPH113 What I find most compelling are the words Our Lord spoke in Matthew 18:21-35 where He explains the necessity of forgiveness. Verse 35 concludes with: "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” I take Our Lord's words seriously.

[@atrifle8364]

Repentance = work

[@catholicskeptic]

@atrifle8364 Yep! 👍

[@ednewcomer]

God does not want bitter, resentful, unforgiving people in heaven. So with help from God (i.e. grace) we must release our anger and forgive those who have hurt us. This is a key to living life to the fullest.

[@catholicskeptic]

@ednewcomer Amen! Bitter, resentful and unforgiving persons will not see heaven, and further will be miserable on earth. Unless they truly repent and receive absolution from God.

[@catholicskeptic]

@@_ready__ So you actually believe there are bitter, unforgiving people running around heaven. Heaven , according to you Darbyists, mustn't be much better than earth. The Jesus I serve saves us from our sins, He does not merely overlook them. Romans 8:29, Matthew 1:21.

[@catholicskeptic]

@@_ready__ According to a devout Darbyist's interpretation of Catholic doctrine; which was extracted from some silly anti-catholic playbook. The difference between us, is I have actually read Darby and personally known several Darbyists who believe the nonsensical theology you peddle. While you don't actually read the Catholic Catechism, you just take select quotes from your anti-catholic pamphlets. I pray for you , that you'll someday develop the courage to actually read the actual doctrines without the Protestant filter. God bless you on your spiritual journey, hope you come home to Rome, someday.

[@catholicskeptic]

@@_ready__ It's kind of amusing to think about someone who believes in Dispensationalism even grasping doctrines that have clear historical roots.

[@ralf547]

You are so correct in making the point that emotions are just a response to salvation and not the indication of it. Certainly, our emotional response to a teaching is no indication of the truth of the teaching. And the Christian in deep despair, beaten down by life, and feeling no emotional joy, has not lost the Holy Spirit and salvation or the joy that surpasses all understanding. And thank you for explaining the importance and efficacy of Baptism. And as someone who left the Catholic Church, because I finally read my Bible, I didn't leave disgruntled. The Catholic Church didn't in some way offend me and drive me away. As far as your understanding regarding the sacrifice of the Catholic Mass, I wish it were the universal belief of Catholics. Reading the Catholic Catechism contributes to my confusion regarding Communion in the Catholic Church. I won't quote it here. I've quoted it in the past. But it is less than clear, at some times supporting your view and at other times supporting the arguments of those critically claiming the Church thinks it's re-sacrificing Christ. Regarding the hierarchical nature of the church. You make a great point. It's a great argument against the non-denominational/independent churches who without any oversight are subject to the fallen sinful nature and errors of an almighty senior pastor. But the Catholic Church isn't the only one with such an authoritative leadership. The Eastern Orthodox certainly has one and it's not under the Roman Pope. Even my Lutheran Church body has a hierarchy to assure the fidelity of the teaching/preaching of pastors. It was severely tested in the 1970s, resulting in a split in the church. Essentially the same crisis the Catholic Church is entering into right now. Are you paying any attention at all to the Synod on Synodality? I know you like to avoid such controversies. But this one involves a whole lot of the Cardinals of the Church and the Pope. If you have a concern for the Church, you should be interested. Surely you aren't in agreement with the move towards removing homosexuality from the category of sin.

[@catholicskeptic]

@ralf547 I appreciate your comments here. I find it interesting that your reasoning in rejecting Catholic truth always seems to come back to the faithfulness or lack of faithfulness to the professed adherents of the Faith. The Church has had many crises down through the centuries, at the time of the Arian heresy, more than half the Bishops had succumbed to heresy. Corruption, bad examples of so-called believers. If I made my judgment based on the instability of sinful humans and their behaviors, I would probably have fallen away from any faith years ago. The synod is happening; the Pope's actual written statements continually maintain adherence to the historical, Traditional doctrine of the Church. But the allowance of so many dissenting views among various bishops, cardinals, and all the rest is a sad reality. What it tells us, is the Church is in a time of crisis. The current Pope has sadly exhibited weak leadership, or so it appears, in handling the situation. However, notice I said, "appears ". It is not my job to judge the Pope's motives, intentions or his heart in the matter. I serve Christ in small the role He has graced me for, and my faith is in Christ, His promises and His Word, in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of His Church. The quality or lack, is not my business. The Church has survived many crises, it will survive this one; how do I know, because Christ promised us the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. ( Matthew 16:13-19) P.S. The Eastern Orthodox have their own issues, but the Catholic Church recognizes their sacraments, their Apostolic succession as valid. I would encourage you , if you can't get over your issues with the Catholic Church, to consider the Orthodox Church, as it is a better choice than the Lutheran tradition, in my opinion. But if you judge it by by the numbers, as in how many are faithful,in human actions of members, sadly you will once again be disappointed.

[@ralf547]

​@@catholicskeptic I appreciate you continuing to take time to converse with me, even though it gets repetitive. I don't understand how you come to conclude that my issue is based on Catholics who are poor adherents of the faith. I do point out the problems of adherents to Catholicism, especially the hierarchy. But I bring it up because it's evidence that Catholicism is just like every other denomination, and has been this way since it's beginning. You admit that. No denomination is without the struggles you point out when using the example of Arianism. I get it. The Catholic Church has had many struggles with error in the past. Do you really believe that the Bishops who were Arians were in the one true Church? Were they still Christians while Arians? That is my point. Much of the one true Church can be found in the Catholic Church but the institution which is the Catholic Church isn't the one true Church. Christ's Church can only be composed of Christians. We can't ever truly judge Francis or anyone. But we all participate in judging when we accept anyone into membership based on their public confession of faith, while knowing that only God knows the truth of their profession. But I can listen to what Francis says, what he does, who he promotes, and who he accept with open arms, as his public profession of faith. He does not appear to be a member of Christ's mystical body, and he's the head of the Catholic Church who the Catechism says all clergy and members must be in unity with to be Catholic. So do you actually have a pope? If I find a tradition that is more faithful to God's Word and more faithful to practice as outlined in God's Word, then I will join it. That's been my path up to date, and why I am a Lutheran. I can hear you saying, "it's that scripture alone problem again." But anything done or believed in violation of God's Word is heresy. Correct? Well, can anything that is considered Sacred Tradition in the Church violate Sacred Scripture? Surely the two must harmonize? My continued concern for Catholics is that they worship and serve the institution as if it's Jesus. Faith is only as beneficial as that in which it is placed. If faith is placed in an institution that permits, or endorses, and especially makes standard practice or doctrine; that which is in violation of God's Word, it can't be God's one true Church. You already know I agree 100% with you, Christ's one true church will prevail over Hell's gates. I fear you believe it to be a flawed human institution when it's actually Christ's mystical body. Can you please answer a couple questions, which will help assuage some of my concerns? I have asked several previously and don't recall getting a definitive answer. Sacred Tradition cannot violate Sacred Tradition? Do you believe homosexual sex is sinful? If the Catholic Church makes acceptable the practice the blessing same sex relationships, (which has already happened in some places in the USA and generally in Germany, and is historically considered a grievous sin by the Church) will you accept it because the Catholic Church says it's acceptable practice, or just allows it to continue and even spread under the guise of "pastoral care"? The Catholic Church considers it adultery for someone to divorce and then remarry without an annulment. Such individuals have not been permitted to receive the Lord's Supper. Francis has admitted publicly he has never with held the Lord's Supper from anyone, ever. As with homosexuality, it's in violation of binding Catholic doctrine/dogma. Do you agree with Francis or with the historic already established Church doctrine? I know, your response is "there has always been bad popes and bad members of the magisterium." Again, it's evidence that the Catholic Church is not THE one true Church. It's simply reasonable to come to that conclusion. I am still praying for you, almost daily.

[@catholicskeptic]

@@ralf547 Actually you ask very valid questions. I'll do my best to answer them. First of all, like many of my Protestant commenters, although you and I agree on a whole lot more, nevertheless you do fall into one common error, and that's sort of, maybe unconsciously? You think of a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, as someone eternally secure in his or her salvation? You must know that the Catholic Church sees individual salvation, although by grace, as a process, not a once for all sone deal. Thus yes, the Arian Bishops were at one point genuine bishops, and likewise genuine Christians. In embracing a heresy that denied the diety of Christ, such individuals, unless they repented, did lose the grace of salvation and are likely in hell now. The same principle applies to popes, some were severely evil, lived lives of utter debauchery, and likewise are very likely in hell. The Church, whether understood as the Catholic Church, or even as simply a collection of true believers, is still made up of sinful, flawed men and women. So if Francis continues down a path he appears to be on, then yes he may end up with a similar fate. I choose to pray for him. As regards to his current actions, yes there are many indications he is going down a very bad road. Now like many , you fall into the category of assuming he has taught heresy. You can't go by Taylor Marshal, you need to actually read the documents. Francis has made it clear how marriage is defined, and affirmed Traditional Catholic Teachings. He has not said that divorced and remarried people can willy nilly trust take communion. He said there can be mitigating circumstances, a person who was abandoned, remarried and has not yet gotten an anullment, can go to confession, receive absolution and then receive the Eucharist. My own father had a very brief marriage before my mother, he abstained from sacraments for 20 years, until his former mother-in-law backed his testimony, and resubmitted his request for anullment. He then finally got one and he and my mother had a Catholic wedding for their 20th anniversary. But he could have gotten it sooner, if he had been shown mercy. That was what Francis was saying in Amoris Lattietia ( I know I butchered the spelling) But Francis did NOT change any doctrine. But guys like Marshal hold back such info. As far as the gay issues , he has permitted blessings to individuals, not same sex couples. Now yes, I know he had buddied up to those on thr church who advocate changes and that is troubling. But so far, no heresy has been yet been actually directly taught by the Pope. I made a video entitled my response to the crisis in the Church. Watch it for more details. But many Catholics, sincerely, but wrongly, are stirring up the pot of anger, rebellion, and bitterness. The Church stands on 3 legs: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. The weaker one is the third, as it is made up of flawed men. But even the worst of Popes have not themselves taught heresy, they have allowed it, though. But there have been many holy Popes, some Martyrs, many are saints. The Bible prophesies of a great apostasy, we may be experiencing it. Why does God allow it? Why does God allow the crises that have happened already? None of those questions have easy answers. But nothing happening now or in the past would make me prefer Protestantism. The outward existence and structure of the Church, provides a clarity of doctrine. But the strength, power, and purity of the truly faithful, no matter how many, nor how few, are always the place I look to for encouragement. The great saints, whom i can even now have fellowship with, and ask the intercession of, strengthen my faith continually. And most of all, Christ's definitive promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Both a great Pope like John Paul II and Pope Francis, and me and you, will all one day stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Thus I will not spend my time on earth railing against the holy father, or the current madness. But i see, in my own experience, so many awesome, exciting things God is doing today: many converts coming in, whom i am privileged to teach in my own parish,revival of Eucharistic adoration., young Catholics who are on fire for Christ and thr Traditions of the Church. Ralf there are so many exciting things happening right now. I can't imagine the current crisis in the synod as remotely even tempting me to turn back to the chaos of Protestant madness. The Church , ( I mean the whole body, Protestant, and Orthodox too) is made up of redeemed rebels, sinner's utterly dependent on the Grace and Mercy. Sometimes the ground forces are making great strides while the generals are squabbling. Hope i answered. If not, let me know and I'll give it another shot.

[@ralfsvideos365]

​@@catholicskeptic Lutherans do not believe in "once saved always saved. So again, I can't see how an institution can be considered the one true Church when more than half of it's magisterium were at one time Arian heretics. But at the time, Christians within the institution were members of the one true Church. But despite their having been baptized and receiving the Lord's Supper while also holding offices in the church, those Arian Bishops were not members of the one true Church. Today, with all the chaos and some promoting grievous sin, can that by Christ's one true and apostolic Church? I find your view regarding Francis, naive. He is very careful to not say what can formally be called heresy. If Francis were just a parish priest or a parishioner, it could possibly be excused. However, Francis is the POPE! The vicar of Christ. The supreme pontiff and authority of the Catholic Church to whom every Catholic must be united. If anyone should know what is or isn't sin, he should. If anyone should be intent on NOT scandalizing the faithful, he should. If anyone should strive to make himself clear and fully understood, he should. He said he has never denied anyone Communion. That's an admission of violating Catholic doctrine and 1 Cor 11. James said faith without works is dead. Francis can talk the talk but if he doesn't walk the walk, does he have saving faith? If Francis embraces, even subtly what is grievous sin, he need not pronounce it to the world. His actions speak clearly for him, even if his words don't. You find strength and encouragement in the Catholic Church. I find that in my Church. I have the witness of past saints, many of which are also your Saints. I have sound doctrine, some of which you have in Catholicism. I have the fellowship of brothers & sisters supporting and praying for me. I don't think an absence of prayers of dead Saints is going to damage my salvation. Christ's definitive promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (HIs Church of which I am a member) is as great a promise for me as for you. You said, "But i see, in my own experience, so many awesome, exciting things God is doing today: many converts coming in, whom i am privileged to teach in my own parish,revival of Eucharistic adoration., young Catholics who are on fire for Christ and thr Traditions of the Church. Ralf there are so many exciting things happening right now." Hugh, you properly correct protestants who point to their emotions and experiences as evidence of truth. You sound just like them. And then there is the LDS Ward Chapel here in town which is expanding. They've got growth and apparent enthusiasm. Is that evidence of the legitimacy of Mormonism? Again I quote you. "The Church , ( I mean the whole body, Protestant, and Orthodox too) is made up of redeemed rebels, sinner's utterly dependent on the Grace and Mercy." Is this an admission that what I've been saying is accurate? The one true Church is not solely located in the Catholic Church, it can be found in other Christian Churches as well. When you stand before the judgement seat, will your trust be in Christ or the institution called the Catholic Church? Are they saved who correctly understand Who Jesus is, what He accomplished, and trust that He has obtained the forgiveness of their sins? Or will they be damned for not being united with the Catholic Church? Am I damned? Is homosexuality a sin? Is the God of Islam and Judaism the same as our Triune God? Sincerely, Ralf

[@vinb2707]

Hugh, I will keep you in prayer and ask God to continue to bless you in the great work that you are doing. I am so grateful for so many of these ex-Evangelical and Protestant pastors who have become Catholic. The more I listen to the debate between Catholics and Evangelicals, the more I’m convinced of the truth that is found within the church that Christ founded. Tonight I attended an Evangelical Bible study that I go to weekly. We are in the middle of studying Ephesians. At one point one of the individuals there pointed out that the word was essential for anyone who was to receive our Lord. I had to remind them, that Jesus started a Church and it is the responsibility of that church to bring the Gospel to the world . One must first recognize the Church before excepting the word. It’s really simple, it is irrational to except the Bible as the word of God and yet not accept the Church that was established by Jesus. Without the Church, there is no canon of scripture. The further one drifts from the traditions of the Church, the further they get away from the foundations of the faith. That is how you end up with such unbiblical belief’s that lead one to believe that Peter, John and the others had no understanding of the Gospel. That type of belief was started by someone not so long ago and now, dare I say, has become a tradition of man that has been past on to those who will try to defend it at all cost. It doesnt work!

[@ralfsvideos365]

Putting Christ's Church ahead of God's Word is puzzling to me. I hope Hugh will respond to this. Muslims in countries where Christianity is forbidden, who hear the Word of God from radio ministries specifically reaching out to them may never have a Catholic Church in the form of a community of parishioners or a building to gather in. They may never get the blessing of receiving the sacraments and actually become Catholic. But God's Word used by the Holy Spirit will have created of that former Muslim, a Christian, and added him/her to His one true Church, His mystical body of believers. Please don't make the institution of the Church an idol, any more than you would a very charismatic priest or an excellent pope or someone like Joel Osteen who many protestants idolize.

[@vinb2707]

@@ralfsvideos365 you believe that by what I am saying, I reject the importance of God’s word. The truth is, that it is because of the church that Christ established that I can accept the Bible, as being the word of God. What I learned was simple, Christ established a church. He chose certain men to be his apostles. He gave authority to those apostles, who then passed on that authority to others by the laying on of hands. I always believed what I had been taught to believe. And what I was taught, was this, that the Bible is the only authority. In fact, the Scriptures plainly show us that Jesus established the church and it was through that church, led by the Holy Spirit, that the canon of scripture was established. What I failed to realize was that I had excepted the Bible as the absolute word of God, and yet rejected that very church, which Jesus used to give us his word. So many of the doctrines that I had rejected we’re actually established prior to the canon of scripture. I agree that the Bible in the hands of an unbeliever has the power to convert them because it is God who speaks to them through the Scriptures, but I also understand as the scripture says, that it is the church that is the bulwark and pillar of truth as it states in second Timothy.

[@ralfsvideos365]

@@vinb2707 Problem is, the Catholic Church headquartered in The Vatican isn't the one true church of Christ. It's an organization, institution of this world. Christ said His kingdom is not of this world.

[@vinb2707]

⁠@@ralfsvideos365to make that statement and then to hold onto that belief is to ignore the history and the fathers of the early church. I’m sorry, while I understand where you are coming from, it’s just not based on truth. The Catholic Church undoubtedly can trace its roots right back to the apostles and ultimately back to Christ himself. I have a lot of respect for my Evangelical friends and love that they love the scriptures, but they cannot trace their beliefs and the traditions back to the early church. Even Luther would be perplexed by their worship practices and their doctrines. You believe as you do because you were taught to do so. You interpret the scriptures through the lenses of your faith traditions as passed down from men who left the Catholic faith. I know this because I once believed as you do. I firmly and emphatically believed that the Catholic Church was a religion that was formed by corrupted men who had added to the truth as founded in the Bible and by doing so had lost touch with the true meaning of the gospel. All I can say is once one studies the Church and it’s true history, they like so many Bible believing Christians, end up coming home.

[@ralfsvideos365]

@@vinb2707 I was raised Catholic, Catholic grade school. Remained Catholic until about 28 years of age. You are correct, Luther would be most critical of Evangelical Protestant Christianity today, as he would be of the Catholic Church and especially it's leadership. Most of those who put his name on their churches would get a most severe scolding from Luther if he were here now. I have and am reading Church Fathers. Every single person who professes faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and correctly understands what God's Word reveals has the original church which Christ founded as it's church ancestry. I believe that every church is formed and led by corrupt men. We are all sinners. Christ heads His church and keeps it true, despite our failures. I'm no scholar, but I am a student of the church and it's history. As I have seen in poll results, all churches are losing membership. Some quicker than others. I hear fairly often, Catholics relating the conversion of many protestants to Catholicism. But the polls relate that most recently the Catholic Church is losing members at about twice the rate as Protestantism on a whole. The size of a denomination or single church says nothing about it's grasp of truth. Joel Osteen has an old pro basketball stadium for a church building and pretty well fills it. The Roman Catholic Church has the same issues, scandals, flaws as every other denomination. Like every other denomination, it has it's unique troubles and errors. As itan organization/institution, isn't the one true Church. There are members of Christ's one true church in the Catholic church as well as many others. His one true Church is His mystical body. Believers.

[@catholicskeptic]

@vinb2707 It's amazing how many will anything someone tells them regarding what the Bible says. To be seriously asked by these people, if Jesus preached the gospel? Or state that Peter and the other Apostles had know understanding of the cross 😮! Yet they balk at Catholic Tradition, while embracing recent traditions like Darbyism of the 1800's. It strikes me that they have no rational thought process at all. Thanks for your insights, very refreshing, God Bless. And thank you so much for your prayers, greatly appreciated. God Bless.

[@catholicskeptic]

@vinb2707 What's really amazing is their willingness to pin their spiritual destiny on the opinions of one guy in the 1800s. Even when I was a Protestant i thought Darbyism was ridiculous!

[@philfrank5601]

Good spisode. Personally, I see no issue with the "Roman" in our Church's official name, but can understand why others might, from a PR perspective. I find using it makes the differentiation more clear among other Catholic churches, rites, etc, but rarely must I do so in conversation. If someone asks, I say I'm Catholic...not "Roman" Catholic. In practice, if somebody else is going to have a problem with Roman Catholics, they'll have a problem with Catholics as well. Which is to be expected; Jesus warned us of such. But we shouldn't let them harden our hearts because at the end of the day, it's our actions that speak loudest among the public's perception of Catholicism. Living a holy life is the best testimony. God Bless, Hugh.

[@catholicskeptic]

@philfrank5601 I heartily agree , and a point you excellently stated. Thanks 🙏.

[@fantasia55]

The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants, as an insult.

[@matthewsymonds7772]

Grwat vidos hugh

[@catholicskeptic]

@matthewsymonds7772 Thanks, all the Glory to God.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Protestant response. No Protestant should ever, ever fear reading the church fathers. In fact, it should be mandatory reading. The Fathers are part of our heritage.

[@catholicskeptic]

@paulsmallwood1484 One point you and agree on, Paul.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@catholicskeptic Amen brother! 😉

[@silveriorebelo2920]

yeah, yeah... that is why you don't care about what they believed and taught - you would become catholic if you began doing that

[@fantasia55]

the Church Fathers were Catholic priests.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@fantasia55 Not before the 4th century they weren’t. Sacerdotalism did not exist in the church before then. For example Ignatius was not a priest. He was the pastor of a local church. The sacerdotal priesthood did not exist yet. The papacy did not exist yet. In the first two centuries Christian apologists like Justin Martyr noted the difference from pagan religions in the absence of temples, altars, images, and material sacrifices. In the third century, as part of an increasing distinction between the clergy and the laity, the language of priesthood began to be more regularly applied to Christian ministers (perhaps more comparatively by Origen but in a straightforward way by Cyprian). The Christian assimilation to the environment in cultic terminology increased throughout the third century and became standard in the fourth century.

[@ralf547]

I continue concerned about the Catholic view of works. It confuses justification and sanctification. For a very long time (as a result of several long conversations with JW's and LDS) I've read my bible paying attention to obedience and good works. I haven't as yet found an example of good works being done or instructed to be done to obtain salvation. They are all instructions given to Christians (already saved) or indicating they are the necessary result of an already existing faith. In agreement with your views, we Christians are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, because to do otherwise is to lose your faith and salvation. But no one who is an unbeliever is going to be fearful and trembling and striving to be saved by a God they don't already have faith in to save them.

[@mikelopez8564]

Here is a list of good works that carry a promise of salvation, according to Jesus himself: pray in secret, give alms in secret, fast in secret, give a cup of cool water for My sake….correct a sinner, clothe the naked, feed the hungry. Really, you never have seen these in the Bible?

[@ralf547]

@@mikelopez8564 do unbelievers pray? Or fast or give act charitably towards the one true God? And then there is Hebrews 11. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Work it out, not create it.

[@For3nity]

Make it simple. Have God in everything you do, and do everything for his glory. And keep in mind that nothing is more important or greater than to always have Jesus with you. God bless ...

[@For3nity]

@@_ready__ Of course it matches up with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). PROLOGUE of CCC: "FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved - than the name of JESUS.

[@For3nity]

@@_ready__ I have said. Make it simple. Focus on God and Jesus. Make them your everything... you'll be surely saved. God bless...

[@ralf547]

REGARDING THE USE OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS: As for the Apostolic Fathers and church fathers in general. Where is there a unanimous agreement within the Church fathers? From what I've learned (and I find very interesting) baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the absence of any teaching of "once saved always saved", are about the only doctrines which enjoy nearly unanimous agreement. But on every other issue, including justification, the fathers don't agree, and even change their views, or appear to, over time. Many writers, both Catholic and Protestant, have produced works using quote mining to find all the church fathers' quotes that support their argument. You've done a little of that in this video. An example would be 1 Clement chapters 31 & 32, used to argue for faith alone exclusive of works. There are others, just as there are plenty that can be used to argue for works being essential along with faith. I've watched a video by Dr. Jordan B Cooper on justification by faith alone in the writings of the fathers. Dr. Cooper, however, demonstrates that there are plenty of quotes from many church fathers which support both justification by faith alone, and justification by faith and works.

[@catholicskeptic]

@ralf547 First of all, I don't quote them as some sort of absolute proof. Like anything real, evidence abounds in many areas and many venues, many sources. These form a "beyond a reasonable doubt " sort of picture. The earliest Church Fathers do not teach any "faith alone" elements, so far as I have seen. But disproving "faith alone" is akin to proving the earth is round. What I see is there is an enormous, deep well of evidences that Christ founded One Church, and that it is the Catholic Church: Early Church history; the assembling of the NT canon; The depth of clarity in the New Testament of what it means to walk with Christ; the enormous record of the Saints; Miracles; Exorcisms; yes, personal experiences with God; The enormous testimony of so many converts through history; The sheer Grace of God operative in my life; the fact of the intact existence of the Catholic Church in history. When a tourist visits the Parthenon in Greece, they are very seldom pilgrims on a spiritual quest, whereas when tourists visit The Vatican or Fatima; or Lourdes; they are very often pilgrims. But in the end, it is a matter of Grace and Faith , in one's soul. As I write this response, I have 0 doubt, of any sort, that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He founded and Heads the Church, the One , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. My certainty, my certitude, if you will, is a combination of all the various evidences I just listed, and more I have not chosen to list. Now don't misunderstand, yes I am disturbed by the current conditions of the Church, the choices of how the Pope governs it currently, of many of its hierarchy and their choices, but again, as I have stated to you multiple times in our correspondence, my faith is in Christ, not in men. My historical understanding gives me great comfort, thst the current crisis , like all of them, will eventually end, and, if this is the Final event, The Apostasy , ( 2 Thessalonians 2) then it mesns Christ is returning soon, so either way, Great Good will come of it all, in the end. And as a matter of simple logic, It is far more reasonable for me to believe Jesus founded One Church, than to believe He tossed us a Book, so we could figure it all out. But I am once again simply giving you my perspective, testifying what I believe with all my heart and soul. I provide various reasons, evidences, and such, to help point the way, and perhaps persuade, but in the end , it is always a matter of grace and faith in each person. I share what I honestly believe, and leave the rest to those of you who watch the videos. Beyond that , it's up to each person to draw their conclusions. We each will give an account to to the Lord at His judgment seat, and will do so with fear and trembling.

[@ralfsvideos365]

@@catholicskeptic I'm not going to take the time to find the exact quotes for you, unless you insist. But there are Church Father quotes that defend both faith alone and faith plus works. They are there. I will trust in your profession of faith in Christ, and not in men. But I continue concerned about the Catholic teachings and practices that so many find offensive to our Savior Christ the Lord. We will each stand before His judgement seat and give an account. Will our eternal destiny be based on our performance or Christ's performance in our place and on our stead?

[@fantasia55]

None of them was a Protestant, unanimously.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Protestant response. Good works are necessary to walk in the way that leads to heaven. Good works are not necessary to have the right or title to heaven, but they are necessary to walking in Christ. and only those who walk in him, go to heaven.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@EPH113 They are required in the sense that if none are present in your life, you are not regenerated.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@EPH113 good works are the proof of salvation not the cause.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@EPH113 Good works are the evidence of regeneration. If no good works are present, it should be a cause for concern. Of course only God knows with certainty those who are his people.

[@catholicskeptic]

So according to EPH, the commentor, not the book, one can: lie, steal, commit adultery, murder, covet, worship false gods, take the Name of God in vain, etc. All they want, as long as they confess Christ as Lord and Savior, one is in, going to heaven, no problem 😮. What a terrifying place this heaven of yours must be, just like earth, you can, rob, rape, pillage, plunder, and murder all you want, but you "accepted Christ", so poof , you're in, forever, no consequences, no judgment, no issues. What an abominable notion of the Gospel. Sadly you're doing my job for me, in proving the Catholic Church is quite right.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@catholicskeptic Please cite from one of the historical Protestant theological formularies where it teaches that one can live like a moral reprobate and still go to heaven as long as at one time in your life you said the sinner’s prayer. It ain’t there. The whole notion of the sinner’s prayer is not there. Decisional regeneration is not there. This is strictly a contemporary American Evangelical formulation. Classical, historic Protestantism objects to this heresy as strongly as any Roman Catholic.