Rubio vs. Paul on the Bible and war


#1

Rand Paul: Jesus was anti-war - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

Marco Rubio rebuts Paul on foreign intervention - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

In my view Paul is right that we should defend ourselves but Jesus never supported aggression or interventions.

Rubio is an idiot if he interprets Matthew 5 to justify military interventions. If anything it brings darkness to the world rather than light.


#2

Rand Paul stand for the Christian doctrine of ‘Just War,’ while Rubio does not.

Rubio is also a ‘Christian’ fraud. He claims to be Catholic and attends Mass, but he also goes to a Baptist church. Catholicism and Baptist theology are completely irreconcilable, so he is obviously just going to both of them for political purposes.


#3

My Aunt is a Baptist, and my Uncle is Catholic. On occasion they go to each other’s churches.


#4

They are not totally irreconcilable; they have many beliefs in common. I don’t agree entirely with either one, but I would have no problem attending either.


#5

They are completely irreconcilable. From our understanding of what the Church is, to the Real Presence in the Eucharist, to the false Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and “once saved always saved,” to the Communion of the Saints, to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity…


#6

Okay, I don’t want to turn this into a Catholic vs. Protestant flame war, but you kinda came out swinging, so:

  1. I’m guessing you’re referring to the notion that the Catholic church is the only “true” church. The only “evidences” I’ve seen of such are inconclusive at best.
  2. Not sure what you’re referring to here.
  3. I’ll argue that some Catholic doctrines are (to mix languages) Scriptura Contraire. In fact, contrary to the very word of Jesus as per John 14:6 (if I recall correctly, I asked you about that once before, and you just linked to some stuff instead of answering yourself; therefore, I didn’t read it).
  4. Looked this one up. Evidence, please. Mine (the Bible) says that works are an evidence of faith, not salvation in and of themselves.
  5. I don’t know who told you what, but the doctrine of “eternal security” is by NO means universal in protestantism. Except for one country church that we lived a quarter of a mile from when I was in my early teens, I’ve never regularly attended a church that did (not sure that I ever did at all; other than very occasional community worship services, all of my experiece other than that country church (where I was for about a year and a half), I’ve always attended Free Methodist and Nazarene churches).
  6. Not sure what you’re getting at here, unless it’s the Catholic belief (if I understand correctly) that the taking of the cup makes it literally turn into Jesus’ blood. If so, then please cite evidence. And don’t just C&P and link.
  7. Never heard of this before. If it’s what it sounds like, then again, evidence, please.

#7

No they aren’t. They are only ireconcilable to the Irish, and the Ku Klux Klan. Everywhere else they get along just fine now.

Seriously, even between different protestant churches, they have differences in doctrine. Catholics have it too. The main common thread is belief in Christ. Follow that, live by the Golden Rule, and you’ll probably do allright either way.


#8

This is in danger of becoming an argument of doctrinal issues. But I would like to address some of Jebby’s comments (from FC’s post since, I have Jebby on ignore). First one, I would like to inform you that not all protestants believe in once saved, always saved. I believe we still have free will, and can turn our backs on God. And we do believe in communion of the saints - but we believe that it refers to the saints still here on earth. The Bible equates “saints” with believers (all believers) and sinners with unbelievers.

I’ll make a point on Sole Fide, but not go into detail. If salvation is not by faith alone, but also by works, then Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient. Not that we are not to work, but we are saved for works, not by works.

And I will point out one area of agreement that you completely avoided. Most - if not all - protestants believe in the Trinity.

BTW, are you a pre-Vatican II Catholic? I noticed in another thread that you said you attend mass in Latin only.


#9

You mean Jebby, right?

I only speak latin when I go to the Mexican place.


#10

Yep, I was referring to Jebby. And I’m sure you agree that the Trinity is a major tenet of Catholics, as well as most protestants. In fact, we usually view non-trinitarians more or less as cults.


#11

There are more cults than most people realize.
When I was a child I remember heated arguments during church meetings between Oneness preachers and Trinity preachers. I remember stories of entire congregations breaking out in fights and burning down tents and churches. Like during the Civil War, both sides prayed to the same God.
In Texas, the Town of Trinity, the Trinity River are both remainders of the religious divide over one God or three Gods.

It was kinda like the war fought over which end of the egg to open in the original version of Gulliver’s Travels.

From the time when Constantine declared Christianity the only true religion until recently, the Holy Roman Empire evolved to the Holy Roman Church, the Roman Catholic Church, to whatever they officially call themselves now.
Catholics claim Peter as the founder of THE CHURCH, but it was really founded by Emperor Constantine The Great.

The word catholic means universal and is recognized as the only true Church by Orthodox Catholics.
My neice, (Nephew’s wife) is offspring of Castillion Spanish in New Mexico and still considers all non Catholics to be heretics.


#12

Vatican II never abolished the Latin Mass. And there is no such thing as a “pre-Vatican II Catholic,” there is just Catholic and non-Catholic.


#13

While there are many agreements between Catholics and non-Catholics, including major things such as the Trinity, this does not mean we are the same or that our views are reconcilable.


#14

I want to clarify, I never said Catholics and Protestants can’t get along. I believe they absolutely can and should, we should love each other as commanded by God. That doesn’t mean our theological viewpoints are the same, in many cases they are completely irreconcilable.

Another thing, Catholics cannot have theological differences between each other. To be Catholic is to accept the infallible teachings of the Church, there is no room for discussion on infallible teachings of the faith and moral. You either accept them or are not Catholic.

But yes, I agree that we should all follow the Golden Rule as Jesus taught.


#15

Sorry, I didn’t mean to turn this into a flame war. I was merely pointing out that one cannot be Catholic and Baptist because of serious theological differences on fundamental issues.

Not just that. Baptists claim there is no real authority sanctioned by Jesus, other than the Bible, and some vague notion of Church where you couldn’t actually point to any one person and say he definitely has authority given by Jesus Himself.

Catholics say that Jesus definitely left certain individuals in charge, namely the Apostles, and that they held His authority, with Peter, who in particular, held the keys of authority (cf. Matthew 16:19), having a unique place of primacy.

The Bible and oral Tradition tell us that Our Lord promised He would safeguard His Church from teaching false doctrines through the office of St. Peter.

Check out Matthew 16:13-20 and 1 Timothy 3:15. All the other Christian faiths since the 1500’s were founded by men, who determined what they, not Jesus, personally thought Christianity should be.

I’m talking about the Eucharistic Sacrifice, what Mass is all about. Baptists do not believe that in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, while Catholics believe Christ is truly present, that the bread and wine become Him fully: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is only by and true Jesus Christ. There is no other path to salvation except through Him. So I don’t know how anything the Church teaches in any way contradicts John 14:6.

The Catholic Church teaches that all good works can only be done by faith in Jesus Christ and that works do not save. We can do nothing to merit our salvation. The Council of Trent stated: “For faith, unless hope and charity are added thereto, neither unites one perfectly with Christ nor makes one a living member of his body.” The Catholic view excludes sola fide as grounds for justification, holding instead that grace, which implies good works, is also necessary for salvation (Matthew 25:31-46); that is, by God’s grace through faith, a favour given by him (Matthew 16:17, Ephesians 2:8-10), and the Christian’s response to it in God’s grace (Galatians 5:6), as faith perfected by good works (James 2:22).

I wasn’t talking about Protestantism in general, but rather about the incompatibility of Rubio attending both Baptist and Catholic churches. Baptists believe in “once saved always saved” and it is a central teaching of their faith.

If the assurance of salvation teaching is central in the Christian faith…then why had no one heard of it before the Reformation? We have thousands of manuscripts from the Early Church Fathers, and in them we find all the central teachings of Christ. Why is there no mention of assurance of salvation? Clearly, it was not taught by Jesus or his disciples.

So the next time someone asks you, “Are you saved?” You can say: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

No, the wine turning into Jesus’ blood is part of the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Although, I should clarify that the wine does not just turn into his blood, it turns fully into Jesus Christ. Body, blood, soul, and divinity are fully present under both species (wine and bread).

In Catholic terminology, the communion of saints is said to comprise the church militant (those alive on earth), the church penitent (those undergoing purification in purgatory in preparation for heaven), and the church triumphant (those already in heaven). The damned are not a part of the communion of saints. The Church points to this doctrine in support of their practice of asking the intercession of saints in heaven, whose prayers (Revelation 5:8) are seen as helping their fellow Christians on earth. These same churches refer to this doctrine in support of the practice of praying for the dead (2 Timothy 1:16-18).

It is the doctrine that Mary was always and will always remain Virgin.

Catholic.net - Mary’s Perpetual Virginity


#16
  1. There is nothing in these scriptures that draw a line (directly or exclusively or necessarily at all) to the Catholic Church.
  1. Okay. I still don’t know on what basis you believe this, though.
  2. I believe that John 14:6 tells us that Jesus is our intermediary with the Father. I don’t feel that praying to people or going to a priest for confession of sins is consistent with that.
  3. Then I’m not sure where the conflict is. That Ephesians 2:8-10 reference is consistent with the protestant beliefs that I’m familiar with. I’m not well-read on the history, but I’m wondering if “sola fide” might not be referring to the belief that it isn’t the Catholic Church who decides if someone is saved or not (a la excommunication).
  1. If I understand correctly, you’re saying that Catholic doctrine regards it as incompatible. I do know that I listen to Alistair Begg on the radio, even though I disagree with his eternal security beliefs. That specific point is incompatible with my beliefs, but it isn’t like computer code where every last one and zero has to be in place for me to get any good out of it. If that were so, we’re all toast, because there isn’t a man, woman or child on the face of the Earth who gets every detail right.
  2. I gather it’s a matter of interpretation of John 10:28-29 (and perhaps Romans 8:39), albeit one that I don’t agree with.
  1. Understood (although I may forget it by next week… :awkward:).
  2. I didn’t absorb that very well, so I’ll just comment on a couple of points: I didn’t see any connection with II Timothy 1:16-18 with praying for the dead. As to saints in Heaven praying for us, I’m great with that; however, as I indicated, I have a problem with praying to them in light of that John 14:6 reference. I am familiar with asking others here on Earth to pray for us, and I’ll admit that my knowledge of the reasoning there is lacking.
  3. That’s what I thought. I regard it as questionable at best; the Bible tells us that Jesus had a brother or brothers. I’ve heard that the Catholics ascribe them as being sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, but I’ve never heard of any evidence of either that or of Mary’s eternal virginity.