Featured False Christs

Don't ignore my post and go posting on something else.
Take my post and answer it: point by point, paragraph by paragraph.
Now you are simply behaving worse than the average J.W. that comes to my door--jumping all over the place and not willing to stay on any one topic. Answer the post. Stay on topic.

 

And this is the problem I see, my friend, you equate historical data to Biblical Doctrine.

Whether I believe George Washington was the first President or not and what I base my view on that about does not compare with, for example, whether I believe Christ was a historical figure or not. The same people who would deny Washington as first President would likely tend to cast doubt on the historicity of Christ as well.

The difference being...we Have God's Word on it. If the Word of God states Christ was the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, having come from Heaven for the specific intent to save man from his sin (and it's dread penalty), because it is the Word of God presenting that we place this into a different category than the knowledge that accrues through history which is outside of a Biblical context.

A Martyr making a declaration in any century is not placed on a par with, for example, the Words of Stephen. If a Martyr, in his dying breath, declares "I see Jesus," then dies, I am not compelled to take his declaration as genuine, as I am concerning Stephen. If a Church "Father" declares a Doctrinal position based upon Scripture, I am not compelled to take his doctrine as genuine, as I am with Paul or Peter, for example. Paul states "If righteousness come by the works of the Law," and an extra-biblical Church Leader states we must keep the (Covenant of) Law, who am I compelled to agree with?

I'll be honest about George: I have no interest, at all...as to whether he was the first President or not. History seems to agree he was, and that's good enough for me. I do, however, have an interest in who is President now, because it involves our time, and the events that transpire today, events which the Church should be impacting for the cause of Christ. So too, with the Church Fathers, those who are so entangled in the ministries of past saints often get locked into those ministries to the point where there is not fruit in the ministries they themselves should be performing.

Why would we think that the Lord ministered through men back then and ignore the fact He seeks to minister through us? Why would we think God would illuminate those men...but not us? Is it not necessary that in the Church, the Body of Christ, there are men capable of leadership, instruction, and handling of the Word? All saints die, and need requires that other men rise up to stand in those roles. And when they do, they fall under the same command and exhortation to yield themselves to God and allow God to teach them. And when that is done, we don't see an evolution of doctrine and practice, but a continuance of the very revelation provided in the First Century. We are keepers of the Faith, and it is our duty in obedience to God to make ourselves available that God might work through us in this present day.

It suggests that the Lord has not risen up any capable ministers of the Gospel since those "Fathers" passed away.

Again, the Authority Scripture maintains as the rule of measure will never be replaced by the Church herself. We work within the confines of God's revelation, we don't work around it, which is what many heretical doctrines seek to do. For example, those of liberal view who try to reconcile gay marriage with...Scripture, and the will of God. How shall we deny this practice and declare it as sin if we afford men the right to rewrite?

We are to be conformed according to that which God intends, and this is why He has given us His Word, that we have that rule of measure which we can trust, because man so often, and inevitably...proves himself not worthy of trust.


God bless.

 

I will ask again for the interpretation of...


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


And just for the record, I am not anti-Catholic, though I take issue with a number of Catholic Doctrines. There is a difference.

What I would suggest, and this is sincerely for your own good, is that you set aside the Martyr Syndrome which you seem to use as a defense against an examination of Scripture itself. You say your interpretations are the correct ones, making yourself guilty of what it seems you despise...men having the audacity to think that God will reveal truth to men, of all people, lol.

I have invited you to look at the proof-texts that the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) use to justify salvation through works (and that is the only other category, as salvation through Christ by grace through faith stands alone (no pun intended)) in order that you might understand the nature of the interpretations. I could go through the above post, which lists a great many verses, however, seeing that the previous posts have gone without response, perhaps it might be best if you just choose a couple of the passages you feel support the view that men can lose their salvation. It's a sincere invitation, and understand it is not just Catholics that embrace this view. So it is not a singling out of a Catholic, and you are not the intended target, lol. The intention is to discuss the doctrine itself.

I can't help but feel that many of those that refuse to engage in serious discussion and examination of the basis for their beliefs refuse...because they do not want to change their view, regardless. Some are afraid to examine their basis. I can understand that. When I first began debating atheists there was always an intimidation factor that wondered if one would present something that I could not reconcile. What I have found is that Scripture has remained true n this fight and rather than my faith being undermined, it has been strengthened, over and over. There is not an exchange with atheists now from which I not only learn just how convoluted their doctrine is, but usually learn something positive which leads to a stronger position in faith in Christ and the Word.

So let's look at it, my friend.

God bless.

 

Darrell and all anti-Catholics,you really just haven't any biblical understanding. [prime example, none of you Protestants can agree on Bible interpretation ] The Catholic interpretation of the Bible stood for 1500 years. There was no distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. Martin Luther gave peasant Europe an excuse to rail against the set society, including the church. There was power grab after power grab and by the end of Martin Luther's life there were over 30 Protestant religions. Luther re-interpreted the Bible, heretically, to serve his own purposes. Catholicism is the only religion that does not fundamentally go against the Bible it professes. Maybe if you would also believe the bible, I mean the whole Bible, i.e. { John 20:30 } do you think the author that wrote that verse was just blowing hot air or filling up an empty space? It means not "everything" that happened during Jesus along with His Apostles ministry is not recorded in the Holy Bible.

 

In other words, merely not accepting Catholicism makes you anti-Catholic. Not just that, it also makes you biblically illiterate.

There were differing sects within Christianity before the end of Paul's life. So to act like there is one outstanding, nigh-upon-perfect earthly church is just silly. If you want to talk about the Church, the one the writer in Hebrews refers to as the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn, then you can talk about an outstanding church. But it is not earthly. It is a spiritual assembly of believers. It is the Bride of Christ.

Luther didn't do that by himself. The Church basically set the groundwork for the revolt. If it hadn't been Luther, then someone else would've set that fire. The church had spent years stifling scientific research that disagreed with its interpretation of scripture. It had forced brilliant minds to recant discoveries in order to keep itself as the head of power. It had intentionally withheld an understandable scripture from the common people. How many poor peasant farmers in 15th century Europe could read Latin? How many could read? Yet the church kept them in the dark on scripture, and did so intentionally.

Really? Requirement of works for maintaining salvation? Seeing salvation given upon baptism? Thinking that somehow a parent can give account for an infant in order to attain salvation? Purgatory? And you say that does not fundamentally go against the Bible? Wow.

There is a lot that the Bible is silent on. Sometimes many years will pass from one verse to the next. We don't invent non-scriptural documents to fill in those gaps. We don't turn to some un-Biblical magisterium for guidance. We look to the Word and we seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. But we also admit to being fallible, corrupted beings, tainted by sin. Your ruling class of Cardinals, Bishops, and Popes is likewise tainted by sin, likewise fallible, no matter how much you think they aren't. They are just as capable as any other human being of making a mistake. The fact that they are preaching and teaching Catholic doctrine as mentioned above is one of the biggest mistakes they make, and it is leading millions astray from God.

 

First, I am not a Protestant.

Secondly, I am not anti-Catholic.

Third, I am not anti-Protestant either, lol. Just wanted to throw that out there to avoid the displeasure of our Protestant brethren.

How would you know, really? You refuse to examine the bible, preferring instead to post that said by other men you see as capable of interpreting properly, and not realizing the hypocrisy of that position.

So how do you know my, or the other interpretations presented...are in error?

Again, not a Protestant, but just like the reason many join the Catholic Church, so too many join a Protestant fellowship because their is an order.

In regards to agreement among them, apart from secondary issues, there is a uniform agreement which has perpetuated the feud between them and Catholics.

You may want to check your math.

You cannot possibly create a 1500 year history for the Catholic Church.

Secondly, to assume that the Catholic Church maintained a consistent teaching throughout her history would also be to assume too much.

Show me indulgences in the early Catholic organization, for example. Show me a doctrine of Purgatory taught in the early Church.

Scripture denies that. We see the differences of doctrine among the various and widespread fellowships addressed by Paul, Peter, John, and Jude. Not all erred according to the same fashion. The doctrines that might have taken hold in some of those fellowships were corrected by these men. That which we do not have record of surely following the same pattern of Doctrine revealed by God to holy men instrumental to the founding of the Church and churches.

And what was his motivation? First, Luther saw an abuse of power and a fleecing of the "sheep." Again, show me a consistent teaching of indulgences by the Catholic Church.

The second point I would make would be to remind you that Luther did not have intention of destroying the Catholic Church...but reforming it.

That's why it is called the Reformation.

Personally, if I were able to sit down with him in doctrinal discussion, the conversation would likely be very reminiscent of our own. I reject Luther's views on certain matters, purgatory being one of them, and while I have been told he recanted that position it is, for all history, there to be seen in the 95 Theses he presented.

Ever read it? You guys have quite a bit in common. Today, if he were still possessed of the doctrinal views he had when he began his protests, you and he would be closer in view than you and I are.

You don't seem to understand that you are vilifying...a Catholic Priest. Shame on you.

Isn't that typical among men? Especially when they have a foundation of a very confused doctrinal platform?

So you say, yet you have disqualified yourself as being someone who can actually levy that charge, though you don't realize it.

So you cannot know who reinterpreted what. All you can go on is the cumulative conclusion of your own denominational affiliation, which you may not admit, but should be excluded as biased. This is just setting your own position into a context that is relevant to the issue.

You are...disqualified. And you have...disqualified yourself by your own testimony.

This might be said to be true. I think Luther was genuinely appalled at the notion of money for purging of sins. Even in a post-Cross context, meaning that which pertains within our salvation rather than the attaining of salvation, this is itself not only heretical but undermines the Glory of the Cross and Christ.

He probably dressed funny too, but that is for another discussion.

So show me how the Protestant goes against the Bible. You won't do that by denying the Solas (and you realize there is no sola sola, though we have available Pizza! Pizza! (sorry, in a facetious mood this morning, please forgive me...I'll try to do better)).

The truth is that you can't, because you refuse to address the doctrinal issues, instead preferring to maintain a Martyr Complex, dismissing any relevant or reasonable address and clinging to the interpretations...of men.

Something you overlook is that John points out that Scripture is distinctive from...everything else. He makes Scripture exclusive, and one error of the Catholic Church, as a doctrinal organization, is their acceptance of the authority of man over the Word of God. We are made guardians, not masters...over the Word of God.

God is the Author, but John, no, John held respect for the Word of God and kept a right perspective concerning the role of man in relation to the Word of God.

But what is recorded was recorded because God intended us to have the record of that which He felt we needed to know.

Now I ask you again, and you can look at Catholic commentaries if you like, what does this verse...


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


...mean.

It is not the Spirit of God that leads you to refuse to answer, my friend.

If you are not ready to answer, get ready. even if you don't answer me, at least find that answer for yourself.

God bless.

 

there was the true church of christ here upon the Act dueing the time of the Apostles and Acts, and that was NOT the Church of Rome, and the scriptures ALONE were the souirce used to guide/instruct/teach the faith to Christians, and there has ALWAYS been a differnce between the teaching and doctrines of the true church and the RCC...

God gave the RCC their chance to repent and reform it to being a real church with real Gpspel, as in the time of the reformation, but chose instead to write the Council of trent, and codify the bast heresies of the RCC!

 

I have time and again demonstrated how I believe the Bible and you don't.
You follow Tradition and the Catechism; I follow the Bible.
You still won't answer my post as I requested you to do.
You hide from trying to prove your heretical doctrines from scripture because you cannot. Your doctrines cannot be proved through Scripture because you don't follow the Bible.
Thus you are a hypocrite. You make a claim that is false.
You can't prove it.
Prove it by answering my post, or perhaps more than one of my posts that you continue to avoid.
Why do you keep using this board as an advertising site for the RCC.
It is not.

If you don't engage in intelligent debate I foresee that your days here are numbered.

 

When are you guys going to get it right. Catholic Church comes from a Greek word Katholic [spelling ?] it means universal as in {Matt.28: 18-20 } "... in EARTH.... teach all NATIONS.... " KJV, can you see where the connection is between Earth and ALL Nations with Gr.word Katholic/ Universal ? The Catholic Church was first penned by Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D., and called verbally Catholic years before it was written as such. The label "Roman" called by all you Protestants is a Protestant name coined by your King Henry the Eighth of England.

Once again, to refresh your memory, Yeshua you wrote:"and there has ALWAYS been a differnce between the teaching and doctrines of the true church and the RCC..."

Once again, to refresh your memory. Using the KJV-
The Church is One { Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor.10: 17, 12:13 }
The Church is Holy {Eph.5: 25-27, Rev.19:7-8}
The Church is Catholic { Matt.28:19-20, Rev.5:9-10}
The Church is Apostolic { Eph.2:19-20 }

What is the matter, you really don't believe that Jesus wasted His three- plus years Teaching His Apostles only for the 1ST. Century Christians and not for "ALL " Christians for all the Centuries, do ya ? Yes or No ?

 

Catholic means the universal Church, the church existed before the RCC, right back in the time of Acts, and that church was local assemblies who heeded the scriptures and the inspired teachings of the Apostles, and that was NOT the Church of rome, for peter was NEVER seen as being the pope there, as James was head of the mother church in Jerusalem, and paul was same as he was, just peter to the jews, and paul to the gentiles...

the church of Rome and its papacy did not come to exist until centuries later, so why are you using those verses, as it cannot refer to the RCC!

 

Hey Yeshua, how about some documentation, remember now, if its not in the Bible ,then it can't be true.


The Catholic Church was formed by Jesus upon his Apostles/Successors, not on John Smyth or on Luther, or Calvin or any other man or woman. Do you understand that Jesus the Christ is Head of the Catholic Church and He formed His church on the apostles.

 

DHK,I do love Jesus and His Holy Bible.

 

Jesus said:

John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.

He just quoted from the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:1-17]:

Exodus 20:6 - And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Therefore, may I ask you, brother lakeside, do you keep those Commandments as cited therein, or another set which may be similar but not the same? please see, as a Roman Catholic, before answering:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

Do you keep the Scriptural Ten Commandments (on Left) or the "traditional" on (far right)?

The two are not the same, and differ one from the other.

 

If you did you would demonstrate that belief to answer the posts I have previously made. But you can't--meaning that you put your love for the RCC above your "love" for either Jesus or His Word. You don't follow Christ or his Word, you follow the Catechism, the Magesterium, the writings of sinful men. You are unable to use the Bible to refute the heresies of the RCC which I have outlined for you. You deliberately avoid those posts and use this board as an advertisement agency instead.

 

If you are interested in objective truth, you will seek to be educated, not indoctrinated -- that is, you will study diverse sources representing every theological system, denomination, doctrinal stance, etc., rather than just one, the one that agrees with you.

You might want to widen your horizons beyond the narrow confines of Calvinism and try this sometimes.

 

If you were looking for the real "Catholic Church", you should have joined the EOC. They are much closer to the scriptures than the RCC. The RCC has developed doctrine more than any church in Christendom. It has many doctrines unheard of in scripture and contradictory to scripture.

 

You never even tried did you?

 

DHK,I will get back with answers with your questions. Right now I am waiting on a phone call from the doctors concerning my brother and sister who are both in hostice {?spelling } home, my brother especially is in his last hours. Please say a little prayer for him, he has never accepted Jesus. My brother Dan believes in God, but that is as far as it goes, no Trinity or Cross, Resurrection, nothing. Please pray for him , my sister is a 'born again' Christian, and has been reading the Bible to our brother, hopefully he has accepted Jesus as His Lord and Savior before he became non- responsive. I will attempt to answer your list as time permits, I trust you will understand my present situation. Thank You, I appreciate your patience with me.

 

I am sorry to hear of your situation in regards to the family. I will pray for you and your family tonight.

 

Praying for your brother, for you, and your family.