Featured This seems bigger...

Roman Catholicism denies justification by faith alone. As a Reformed Christian that ends all debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

List of popes - Wikipedia

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

While the 2nd and 3rd Pope are around so are living Apostles backing them up.

We got folks like Linus, Cletus, Clement. who run rome and are hand picked by Apostles.

We have other bishops of important positions like Ignatius of Antioch.

These aren't folks following a fairy tale of the bible, some are mentioned directly in the bible some get attributed legends like Ignatius was the child Jesus held on his knees.

But some things are not legend, matter of factly the apostles are alive, matter of fact Ignatius is disciple of John.

What do these guys teach and believe? Believe me you don't wanna know.

In the bible we see the church deal with heresy of judiasers briefly. But we see more heresies pop up and get squashed by the church while the apostles are still around. The early church fathers are very loud against any new heresy popping up. Just so as in the bible they talk about it, council, and squash it when they can.

List of Christian heresies - Wikipedia



Where is the CATHOLIC HERESY? Where is there ANYONE, like a church father, a old pastor, swami, guru.......jeez give us anyone! who says "HOLD on who the heck are these NEW guys these......CATHOLICS!?"

Who are these heretics teaching that Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine!?

This is found NO WHERE.

 

What is wrong with DENYING Faith Alone? It almost sounds like we are DOING something Wrong.

It almost sounds like we have to DO SOMETHING RIGHT! It sounds like your not satisfied with our FAITH ALONE.



I dare you to show me the phrase "FAITH ALONE" in scripture.


The one spot that says it:
James 2

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


And somehow a person would be disloyal to the word of God or it would be impossible to believe that anyone could mistake this verse, unless they they believed the verse means the EXACT OPPOSITE:

24You see that a man is justified by FAITH ALONE and not by WORK.


Reformist deny scripture and don't practice what they preach, Cause if they actually believed FAITH ALONE can handle problems they wouldn't have to require themselves and others to take ACTION, like leaving and dividing or hold on buddy you have to do the GOOD WORK of preaching the right thing.

They require WORKS of people more so then they accuse others of requiring it of them!

 

Our entire point of contention is we Catholics say you have to do things right along with faith. While you guys say FAITH ALONE.

So we say OK FINE we will continue to teach YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS RIGHT! And then your like oh no stop doing that.

And we are like WHY!? What the heck happened to FAITH ALONE!?

So what if I teach things the wrong way!? are you saying we ought to or somehow required to teach things the RIGHT WAY!?

Because if that is what you are saying.......WELCOME TO THE CATHOLIC POSITION! we've been saying it!

 

I can be TEN TIMES better reformist then anyone here by practicing what reformist preach.

It wouldn't matter what religion you practice or what you do. Oh this guy is a catholic? Well I know there NOTHING he can do to better his chance to salvation, And I know there is nothing I can do for him either.

So what do I do? I pray to God, Dear Lord fix him, amen. And then tell them hang in there and have a great day, THE END.

Its all on God, Piece of Cake.

 

Oh so till the year 2017 the Catholic heresy just occurred!?


The point I made before and ill do again. Is we see throughout history when there is a disagreement or heresy it shows.

We see the manicheans, the arians, the donatists, heresy after heresy........but NOT ONE PEEP says Who the heck are these Catholics moving in on christianity?

NNE stands up in the year 200 and says.....Whoa hold on....who are these NEW PEOPLE these CATHOLIC HERETICS showing up!?


Also the Catholic Church is found in Scripture "UNIVERSAL" is just applied for better western understanding.


ACTS 9:31

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ' ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρίας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη, καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.


ἐκκλησία καθ' ὅλης = Catholic Church

katholikos καθολικός

Maybe you got a greek friend for someone who speaks spanish......ask them to say CATHOLICS for you.

Its not a brand name it means the church throughout all/whole so it doesn't only particularly encompass "universal" it could be more then that.

Human to Person is same as Catholic to Christian.

We don't call ourselves ROMAN catholics, Protestants added that because they wanted "Catholic" for themselves.

Read very closely. This is why you hear ROMAN Catholics or Papists, they won't call them Catholics



Also I demand SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATION for the notion that for anything to be christian sole and final authority is from SCRIPTURE ALONE.

If your RULE has no scriptural support it is a MAN MADE TRADITION and a LIE.



The reason this is so easy to debate is I have the truth. I don't have to rely on lies and misrepresentations and phantom rules that exist no where in scripture.

 

I think your are confused as to the word Vicar. So I'm going to let you google its definition and come back to tell us Peter was not a vicar.

Ie. That Peter was not a bishop, deputy, vicar of Jesus Christ.



Then you can tell us all these early church fathers are heretic Catholics for believing in the primacy of Peter. Perhaps you can find a objector to these people like yourself between 300 to 33 ad.


Also keep in mind if it wasn't for some of these folks you have no canon of scripture because you are required to take their word as the source of scripture. In the ancient days you did not have email and copy and paste. You had to believe a source was legit held by a legit faith. Your bible is a copy from a manuscript that is in someone's hands who is trusted.

Clement of Alexandria



"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).



Tertullian



"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James



"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



Origen



"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



Cyril of Jerusalem



"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).



Ephraim the Syrian



"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


cont...

 

Continuation of Early church father who are possibly catholic heretics:



Ambrose of Milan



"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).



Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



Jerome



"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).



Pope Innocent I



"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).



Augustine



"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).



Council of Ephesus



"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).



Pope Leo I



"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11)

 

Your website is a anti-catholic source. Who asks a Nazi what Jews believe?

Their/Your claim is "The Holy Spirit, as the Vicar of Christ, is the supreme promise and the key relationship of every true believer to Christ Jesus."

Nonsense the The Holy Spirit is not a deputy or inferior to Jesus Christ. The HOLY SPIRIT is 100% God Almighty.

You can GOOGLE the definition of vicar, even. A rose by any other name is a rose. As the common knowledge and definition Peter is a apostle, deputy, vicar of Jesus. Peter is UNDER Jesus.

I hope this helps our vocabulary handicapped brethren.



"The point that the scripture was not available to the early churches until provided by Rome is bogus"

Absolutely! You don't have a bible, you only stole it from someone else.

There was not a "barn's and noble" book store ancient book store to let folks know the books over here are holy and the ones in the back are not.

Do you read people's mail that is not yours without permission? Yes you do. Who gave you permission to read our scripture? Who identified it for you?

No one from the outside of Christianity, like an atheist , starts with ridiculing a religion only to hijack their scripture.

If I put them in a library with thousands of books on Christianity he doesn't have the infallible force to pick out the 66 books of the bible as you were spoon fed by the Anglican church. You prob read the KING JAMES, not the KING JESUS bible.

How does our atheist turning christian know what book is the holy word of God or not? The church hands it to him.


Bottom line you don't have a bible. You shake a Anglican book in your hand......that is not yours buddy. maybe if your own scholars got off thier lazy seats to research and piece together scripture, but there in lies the brick wall, they don't know what book is holy and what book is not outside the circular reason of what already was put in their hands

The original manuscripts from where people piece together the bible, did not fall out the sky, there is a verification that takes place who's AUTHORITY is to declare scripture true.

I can find the original gospel of Mark but IT ITSELF cannot claim to be holy scripture.

You don't even have proof that the gospel of mark was written by Mark. The earliest manuscripts don't indicate nor say "gospel according to mark" We added "Mark" to it.

 

...which is biblical. Its the Reformed insistence of sola fide that is anti-biblical.

 

As a Synergist I expect you to disagree with me on the Solas.

 

I would be happy if you accept the "received text" aka "The Byzantine" written by the the EASTERN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You have to accept their authority and TRUST THEM to have deliver the word of God to you.


There ain't no "Textus Baptist" Because baptist didn't get made up till 1500s.


See you can't say well those byzantine orthodox Catholics are nuts and don't know what they are talking about and say but hold on their scripture is the true and holy infallible word of God all in the same breathe!

You need your OWN pedigree. Textus Baptist....where baptist bill has his manuscript. Oh thats right baptist don't exist.

You need baptist who hands are on the manuscripts. The orthodox would have books you would consider "Apocrypha" (in the negative sense) .


The point is WHAT ARE YOU READING? That bible in your hand is only a mirror or lens to one of these manuscripts and if this manuscript is a catholic orthodox manuscript......YOU HAVE A PROBLEM! You needed a baptist authority to pick up any of these works and you don't have it.

 

There were Three lines of Popes -- all with successors.... all with their own papal armies to fight each other. All of them defrocked -- then a "Start-over" declared by Emperor Sigismund. So much for "papal line".

What is more even the RCC itself freely admits to "wicked popes" in the "papal line".

So then what is the point of "Papal line"??

 

"Received" by whom??

What is your complaint about the NKJV, KJV, YLT etc?

Recall that even your own Jerome in his translation of the Vulgate freely admitted that the Apocrypha was not canonical