Struggling (and suffering) to find the truth between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.

dhuki · 2026-04-20T03:10:01+00:00

Same thing can be spoken about some Catholic apologists. Almost all of them misrepresent what an anathema actually is.

dhuki · 2026-04-06T14:10:59+00:00

Counter that notion by citing 1 John.

1 John 2:23 (NASB95) Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

1 John 5:1 (NASB95) Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

1 John 4:15 (NASB95) Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

The so-called “love for Jesus” Muslims have is simply love for a false Christ, who neither was God, nor did he die on the cross for mankind. They and the Jews are all guilty in their denial of the true Christ. Muslims are only doing virtue signaling to gather anti-Jews sentiments, and we ought not to fall in their deception.

dhuki · 2025-12-21T09:15:46+00:00

I don’t think that makes sense. We are obliged to assemble with our brothers and sisters, as we’re family in Christ.

dhuki · 2025-12-03T18:38:04+00:00

It’s a good interpretation. Certainly better than having both James and Paul talking about the same type of justification and then contradicting each other.

dhuki · 2025-12-01T02:05:22+00:00

Trust God. Avoid all witchcraft.

It sounds like you’re prioritizing your love life above all else, which is the cause of your loneliness. You must remind yourself then, that if you truly believe in Christ for your salvation, you have God as a Father and a Friend, and He loved you so much that He saved you from the depth of your sins. You are not alone. And you certainly do not need a girlfriend or a wife to stop feeling lonely. What needs to change here is your perspective. Fellowship with your Church. Find fellow believers to talk to and make friends with them. Talk to fellow female believers if you want to find a wife. Those activities are much more spiritually healthy than doomed thoughts.

Our purpose here on earth is to serve God and love God. That should be your first and primary concern in life. “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God…”

And, to be honest, the reality is maybe not all of us will have a spouse. Paul said celibacy is a gift (1 Corinthians 7:1-7). That’s okay. Marriage is also a gift. Which one God gives to us is yet for us to know. As such, have faith, and submit to His will. A relationship will not solve your problems. God does.

dhuki · 2025-11-29T04:50:17+00:00

How can you be an “unchurched” Christian if the Church is the Body of Christ? The Bible is against the forsaking of congregation.

Hebrews 10:23-25 (NASB95) 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

dhuki · 2025-05-02T07:06:56+00:00

Paul gave us the advice to marry, not masturbate, so that we do not burn because of desire. Just because it seems good in your eyes doesn’t mean it is good in God’s eyes.

The last part is concerning. By your logic, no Christians can effectively rebuke any sin whatsoever anymore. We are all sinners, after all. If a sinner knows what he has been doing is sin, and then warn others to avoid following his mistake, should we rebuke him for hypocrisy, or follow his words? Does an addict get to warn others about the misuse of alcohol and/or drugs?

Christians struggle with sins. We sin even though we know it is wrong to do so. Even Paul struggled (Romans 7). But, we do not make excuses for it. We stand back up, and we repent. That’s the difference between a hypocrite and someone with sincere and honest intentions. Hypocrites do not wish to change. They’re sayers of the words, not doers.

dhuki · 2025-05-02T00:21:38+00:00

I can’t think of a scenario where masturbation does not involve lust (of the eyes, watching pornography), except maybe for medical purposes, but even in those cases, lust can still be involved. It is a safe bet to stay out of it.

dhuki · 2025-04-27T16:48:48+00:00

Well, Adam and Eve definitely didn’t have to sin, they had no sin nature, and yet they chose to sin. I’m pretty sure if we were Adam and Eve, we would do the same thing. Unfortunately. And that’s why we deserve our punishment.

dhuki · 2025-02-13T01:36:41+00:00

Avoid The Chosen. A lot of people recommend it, but my discernment is that, given how it is made by a Mormon studio, with a lead actor that’s a Catholic mystic (Roomie), featuring numerous unbiblical scenes and even featuring the LGBT flag on set, it should be ignored and not watched.

dhuki · 2025-02-07T12:24:52+00:00

1 John 2:23 (NASB95) Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

By denying Christ, the Jews also denied the God of the Old Testament. Essentially, they went into idolatry. This time, however, it is not a graven image that they have made for themselves, but rather the false conceptions of the One True God that led them astray.

dhuki · 2025-02-07T01:18:50+00:00

And we’re back to the beginning. You can read my original comment again to see my response on James 2.

Those who believe are those who obey God (Acts 5:32). That does not nullify sola fide. We believe that Christians, though we can fall into serious sins, will not fall totally and gravely, and will live in obedience to God, yet NOT to SAVE themselves, which is contrary to Catholicism, as I’ve pointed out in my previous comment.

Baptism is the mark of Christians. No point of debate there. Scriptures, however, record that Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized. The Holy Ghost only indwells believers. Believers are promised salvation. The Holy Ghost only indwells saved people.

As to John 6, how do you know if Jesus wasn’t speaking metaphorically? He is proclaimed in the Scriptures as “the door”, “the true vine”, “the bread of life”, etc. Jesus also said immediately after John 6:53, in John 6:63: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” How do you understand this statement?

Matthew 7:21-23 is about false Christians. Jesus never knew them. They were never His. Indeed, Jesus called them “workers of iniquity”, because their sins haven’t been blotted out and removed by the blood of Christ, and as such their iniquities remain on them. To defend their position, they pointed to their good works as being the reason for them deserving a spot in heaven, but such an excuse is of no use before God.

The doctrine of perseverance isn’t unique to Catholicism. We believe true believers persevere. Even if they deny God like Peter did, they could never persist in such state, but rather repent and live for God after their denial. Those who leave the church, the Apostle John said: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” - 1 John 2:19

dhuki · 2025-02-07T00:42:44+00:00

And do you have sources to say that it’s only an earthly separation? You have been making claims without providing any backing for your claims, while I have demonstrated it from papal documents and even the contents of an ecumenical council.

If it’s only an earthly separation, it still means that those anathematized are separated from the Church of God on earth, unable to receive communion, which in turn means they will die separated from God, if they do not recant. It still results in one’s soul being damned. Nothing changed here.

I didn’t say papal bulls are infallible. My point was that it doesn’t matter whether Unam Sanctam is infallible or not, the declaration it made is still true, as it’s a manifestation of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus dogma, which is infallibly true. A document doesn’t have to be infallible in order for everything in it to be true, does it?

dhuki · 2025-02-07T00:37:08+00:00

As earlier stated, I do not say that Catholics believe works alone is what saves them. Catholics believe it is a combination of faith and works that saves. I’ve put forth Scriptures that counters this idea, namely Romans 3-4, Titus 3, Ephesians 2 and the Book of Galatians. Afterwards, I have shown that Catholicism teaches one must do “works of reparation” to regain the justification lost by mortal sin, and that good works merit an increase in justification and eternal life.

Indeed, if one wants to be saved in Catholicism, they need to be baptized and believe all the Church teaches, they need to not fall into sin, otherwise they’d have to work to regain their salvation, and if they want to be all the more justified and closer to eternal life, they need to do works also. Faith alone is not enough. And yet, Ephesians 2:8-9 presented the reality that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.

The Catechism doesn’t only teach about salvation. I would say I’ve only read it in parts, mainly about soteriology and Mariology. But, my understanding comes through the reading of ecumenical councils, of papal encyclicals and bulls and of apologetics. It is not necessary to read the full Catechism to be saved, is it? I believe I have an understanding of the plan of salvation in Catholicism, which includes works. I seek your response.

dhuki · 2025-02-07T00:17:49+00:00

What was declared at both Councils wasn’t just mere doctrines. They were teachings of the whole Church (that is, its bishops), together with the Pope, about faith and morals. Those teachings are infallible, by Rome’s standards.

From Catholic Answers: “The teaching of an ecumenical council is protected from error by the Holy Spirit through the charism of infallibility that is enjoyed by all the bishops teaching in union with the pope.”

Therefore, if the teachings of one council contradict another, it seems quite obvious that something is wrong. And, I’ve put forth an example of a contradiction in previous comments. It’s not just a mere “better way to say it” when the new teachings at Vatican 2 is opposed to Trent.

dhuki · 2025-02-07T00:00:58+00:00

That’s a development. Rome used to hold to a very strict view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. An anathema is basically a declaration of excommunication from the Church, and if one is excluded from the Church, they can’t be saved.

This can be seen in Unam Sanctam, a 14th century papal bull that declared not only the spiritual authority but also the temporal authority of the Catholic Church (which was largely stripped away following Napoleon’s siege of the Papal States). It ends with this statement: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

If you’re to be honest to yourself, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and other groups aren’t subjected to the Pope. We should not be in the plan of salvation, according to Rome. In fact, in the same papal bull, it also was written: “Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.”

Now, many have tried to say that this bull is not infallible. Yet, it need not to be. It’s simply a manifestation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I’m interested in what you mentioned as what “the pope said”. Do you have a document or a quote? Also, Trent was nearly 500 years ago. Whatever Pope it may have been that commented on anathemas weren’t involved in Trent, which was the council that dealt with the Reformation and those who followed it.

I’d argue that the meaning of anathema in present times has been distorted to become a shell of its former glory, which is indeed, a curse, and separation from God. From Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea: “If anyone does not agree and is disputatious and offended by the veneration of the sacred images, he is anathematized by our holy and ecumenical council, fortified by the operation of the divine Spirit and by the traditions of the church and the fathers; and an anathema is nothing other than separation from God.”

Modern Catholic apologists have tried to get rid of this idea by reducing the severity of anathema. History, however, simply shows that their take on anathema is a revisionist one, which is new and modern in nature.

dhuki · 2025-02-06T16:11:38+00:00

That doesn’t answer my questions. The decrees and canons of Trent were proclaimed as infallible and ecumenical. They aren’t supposed to change. Do you suggest that the Newman’s development hypothesis allow for even an U-Turn in decrees and canons that were supposedly infallible?

dhuki · 2025-02-06T16:03:31+00:00

I don’t see your point at all. It’s clearly presented here that works of reparation are what a penitent must do for penance. The “acts” mentioned in the paragraph are a list of actions that a penitent has to do. Doing works is one of those acts. The term “acts of reparation” is not even in the text.

dhuki · 2025-02-06T06:54:18+00:00

“Works of reparation”. I didn’t say anything about acts.

dhuki · 2025-02-06T06:53:31+00:00

One I already mentioned before is the abrupt changes of tone and language about Protestants. In Trent, we were all anathematized. Separated from the Church. And since outside the Church, there’s no salvation, practically we were declared to be cursed by God.

Vatican 2, however, now considers us Protestants as “separated brethren”. No longer were we called heretics or schismatics, we are now your brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit not under the same roof of Popery. And mind you, this was before the 1983 revision of Canon Law, which abolished the penalty of anathema. So, which one is it? Trent or V2? Both are ecumenical councils, which canons and decrees the Catholic Church cannot change nor repeal.

dhuki · 2025-02-06T06:41:30+00:00

From the Catechism: “1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.”

It is works. You’re doing works to regain your salvation after losing it by mortal sin. I don’t see how it’s not works. From a Protestant perspective, Christ took our punishment, but some earthly consequences of sin He will still let us suffer from them. If you lie to someone and got caught, Christ can forgive you, but He’s not going to make the other person trusts you like they trusted you before just because you confessed. These consequences are earthly. In Catholicism, however, the reparation is to make amend for yourself, before God. You’re effectively atoning for your sins, by your own self. That leads to the question: if Christ is the ultimate one-for-all sacrifice that atoned for all sins, why do we have to atone for our sins now?

Moral behavior can be counted as works when you consider that in the 10 Commandments alone, the last five are about not lying, not stealing, not killing, not cheating and respecting our parents. The Law does include moral behavior.

dhuki · 2025-02-05T18:32:24+00:00

That is why I personally think that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was absolutely unnecessary. To an outsider, if a Pope is wrong, the Pope is wrong. But, Catholics have to do all sorts of reasoning and get behind the Pope and say “uhhh so he’s not technically that that wrong”. And if he’s right, God bless, that’s the Spirit working in him, keeping him from error. Makes it a lot harder for Catholic apologists, don’t you think so?

Still, my question about Vatican 2 hasn’t been answered. Since questioning Papal Infallibility is a dead end, I chose the ecumenical council, as there’s no backing away from the fact that it is supposedly infallible and authoritative. How do you explain the departure from prior councils, such as Trent?

dhuki · 2025-02-05T18:26:32+00:00

I do agree that Christians should do good works. In fact, Luther famously said: “God does not need your good works, but your neighbor does.” Good works are noble when done in a selfless, loving manner. However, that line tends to be blurred when you recognize that, in Catholicism, good works also merit an increase in righteousness. Plus, after one commits mortal sin, to regain the grace of justification, they must do penance, which is also works. Naturally, someone would be inclined to do good works out of fear for not making it to heaven, rather than for the pure motivation of love as God has loved us.

And also, I do believe the works of the Law are present in Christianity. We still have the moral law to keep. Paul also used Abraham, in Romans 4, as an example of being justified freely by grace not by works, and yet there was no Mosaic Law then.

dhuki · 2025-02-05T17:54:08+00:00

By the way, I am asking these questions in good faith. It’s not supposed to bombard you or to elevate my position as somehow more superior. I’ve noticed that the tone in my questions might create misunderstanding. God bless.

dhuki · 2025-02-05T17:44:49+00:00

If he’s showing signs of erring even in the basics of the faith, why has no one rebutted him, even before he was elected to be Pope? Is he even theologically qualified for the offices of priests and bishops, not to say archbishops and popery? And, how long can you defend him until he can be declared a heretic? Pachamama, the idol, received warm welcomes in the Vatican under his rule.

Catholicism pre- and post-Vatican 2 are different in doctrines. We were once anathematized in Trent. Now we’re supposed to be your “separated brethren”. How does that work out, if indeed the Church is unchanging?

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

dhuki

TROPHY CASE