Featured A Catholic doctrine

This is a good collection of the "holy fathers" who promulgated sacred wafers and magical words of "transconsubluxationalism" and "inhocsignovinces"--all extra-biblical to be sure. The corrupted commandments of men must be added. This is why sola scriptura is such a pivotal doctrine. Apply the Book of Jude to the writings of the "holy fathers'"

Jesus paid it all.

"Will the Lord find "The Faith" when He returns?"

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Nothing new here. It is a doctrine as old as the church that Jesus established. As for Bro. James' recommendations concerning the Book of Jude, that is exactly what Ignatius was doing when he said:

Ignatius, a disciple of John, was contending for that was delivered to the saints once for all.

 

We are not to be following the Apostles including Peter. We are supposed to be following Jesus. See I Cor. 3. There was apostasy going on in Corinth as well as Ephesus and Galatia--the Pauline letters are instructions in church doctrine. The dogma around today is manmade and corrupted. This includes holy fathers, past present and future; canon law, holy see and anything else outside divine fiat.

See also: "It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light." II Cor. 11:14.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Just shows that just as yjre Holy Spirit warned, false treachers/doctrines got early into the Church!

 

Are you drawing the conclusion that Catholics are in fact "Devil Worshipers?"

 

Considering that the apostles wrote the only words of Jesus we know about, it is safe to assume that following the apostles is the same as following Jesus. I am shocked that you would suggest they diverge in their teaching.

 

Pagan idolatry or vain worship would be less caustic. We ought to be praying for all those given over to strong delusion. Look what happened to Saul of Tarsus. He sincerely thought he was doing God a service by killing Christians. Paul said he was chosen before he was born.

The validity of the holy see is really simple: if Peter was the first pope in a long line of popes even through today, all those outside the control of the holy see are usurpers and without divine authority. If Peter was not the first pope, the holy see is operating with usurped authority which makes the system apostate, foisted by the commandments of men.

Corollary: those who would reform the holy see are also without authority; i.e. the so-called Protestant Reformation.

How does one reform apostasy?

Somebody got the keys in Mt. 16: The Bride, the Lamb's Wife. She still has them. She is still indwelled by The Spirit, The Holy, Who has preserved Her past the gates of hell, including The Inquisition.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter denied Jesus three times. Apostle Paul rebuked Apostle Peter to his face about doctrinal error. Thomas doubted the resurrection. Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus. Only a friend can betray a friend.

Important point: when God breathed the scripture to the writers of the 66-books, the results were inerrant. What the subsequent holy fathers wrote does not qualify as without error. Some of their writings are riddled with apostasy: universal church, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism.

These errors remain over 1900 years. That does not make them sound doctrine. Errors are still errors regardless of how many halos one may think one has overhead.

Reformed apostasy is still apostasy reformed.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

And you know this how?

 

Breath o liser :laugh:

 

And there you go folks, the crux of liberalism.

 

I would expect a knee jerk response from you that says nothing but attempts to insult the writer. The fact of the matter is that I agree with Bro James that when God breathed the scripture to the writers of the 66-books, the results were inerrant. I started a thread on this topic two or three days ago and the number of responses was underwhelming. So, when Bro James laid it out here I thought, "Why not challenge him to answer why he believes this?" So far he hasn't answered and neither have you. Would you like to state your reasons why you think the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God--without more insults and invectives?

 

No, Paul says "follow me AS I FOLLOW CHRIST" and so Christ is still the only right example to follow.

 

And that is the real issue isn't it? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells you so and it is found in the word "inspired" or God breathed. Either you believe God's word or you do not.

 

Amen. God said it--that settles it--whether we believe it or not is irrelevant. We have no excuses.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

You just used scripture to confirm my thesis. Paul says "FOLLOW ME as I follow Christ." If the apostles follow Christ, then it is perfectly safe to follow them, just as Paul said for us to do. Note that Paul did not say, "Follow Christ at I follow Christ."

 

Yes it absolutely is. We talk about scripture here and everyone accepts its truths. However, if you bring scripture into a discussion with an unbeliever (and chances are you will), you can't just throw it in his face and say, "See here!" You have to do something to demonstrate its truth.

That won't get you very far with an unbeliever. It's circular logic. I believe scripture is inspired because scripture says it is inspired. Even the Book of Mormon makes such a claim. You're welcome to your opinion but don't expect unbelievers to become believers by using that approach.

 

That is the job description of the Holy Spirit the Author.

There is prophetic evidence. There is archeological evidence. There is pre-modern scientific evidence. Surely, you have been exposed to these things by now? The scriptures claim to be final authority for faith and practice (Isa. 8:20). I have dealt with all the flimsy arguments used against Isaiah 8:20 and they are flimsy. That text clearly and explicitly states that if anyone does not speak in accordance with scripture there is no light in them. That my friend is about as explicit as you can get that the scirpture is final authority for faith and practice. Moreover, the context is prophetic (Isa. 8:16-20) prediction of the completion of the Biblical canon of scripture by Christ's disciples and there is multitude of evidence to support this as this text is quoted several times in the New Testament and directly applied to Christ and the apostles.

 

First, notice he did not say "follow me." He realized he was but flesh and fallible. Hence, the standard is Christ who is not fallible. The scriptures provide evidence that the apostles were fallible and are not the absolute standard. We are not called "apostolians" but "Christians"! Why? Because Christ is the only absolute standard to follow.