30,000+ protastant denominations

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, that loud whooosssssing sound you heard was my post going right over your head.

T2U,
Instead of burying your head in the tomes of Roman Catholic tradition, come up, clean off your glasses, and look clearly into the Word of God, and even use some dictionaries for your own benefit.
A discipline is not defined by Catholic tradition.
Doctrine is not defined by Catholic tredition.
Catholics did not write the Bible, nor the dictionaries of the world.

Let's look at some Biblical examples:
Paul disciplined himself:

1Cor.9:24-27
24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Discipline nearly always referred to that which was personal, whether pertaining to the body or to the mind. Paul uses the example of an athelete. As an athelete must discipline his body to run a race, or to train himself for a boxing match, so must a Christian discipline himself in this life for the service of God.

2Cor.10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Since we are in a battle our discipline must be like that of a soldier. The discipline of the mind is one of the hardest for the Christian--bringing every thought to the obedience of Christ. That takes personal discipline.

Discipline is training. It is related to the word disciple. A disciple follows his master in training.

Doctrine on the other hand simply means teaching. You may look it up in the dictionary. Doctrine and teaching are the same thing.
In Acts 2:42 "The disciples continued in the apostle's doctrine.." In many translations the word "doctrine" is translated "teaching." Doctrine is teaching.

Read again the quote from Vatican II that I previously gave. There is a lot of teaching in that quote--Catholic teaching that I disagree with. It is doctrinal. It is doctrine, the Catholic doctrine expounded and explained about the celibacy of the priesthood.
Perhapls there is a reason that the Catholics prefer not to use the word doctrine when it actually is a doctrine and not simply a discipline. I can find it for you.

1Timothy 4:1-3
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

The Bible speaks of doctrinesof demons here. And it mentions two specific doctrines of demons: forbidding to marry, and abstaining from certain kinds of foods. Let us consider the meaning of each one. Remember that this is a pastoral epistle, Paul writing to Timothy, giving advice or instruction in the conduct of the church. This has to do primarily with church matters, not personal decisions.

1. Forbidding to marry. This has nothing to do with a personal decision. Paul made a personal decision to be single. Anyone can make that decision. It is a personal decision whether to marry or not. What Paul is saying in the context of this epistle, is that when the church teaches this as a doctrine of the church--that it is wrong for its members to marry, or for a group of their members to marry (such as the Catholics do) then it is a doctrine of demons. It is a doctrine that comes straight from the pit of Hell. It is devilish, not of God.

2. "Abstaining from meats (foods)" Again this is not referring to a personal decision, but a church decision. Personally you can choose whatever kind of diet you want. If you want to be a vegetarian that is your choice, just don't try to force your choice on anyone else. When the church makes this ("discipline") a doctrine of the church, and maintain that all of its members be vegetarians or abstain from certain foods or meats (such as pork) then it is a doctrine of demons. It is devilish. It is of Satan.

Your church-imposed discipline of celibacy has become a doctrine of the church by the very fact of its imposition on a certain group of its members. It has indeed become a doctrine of demons.
DHK

[ September 26, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[thessalonian]

"And before you say, "Oh well, there are still a lot," please think of what you are saying. You are excusing your false witness like it is nothing. Do you really take it that lightly? Can we pass it off that easily? Is not Jesus THE Truth?"

How many denominations there are is not doctrinal Neal. Thus I do not claim nor does anyone in the Catholic Church claim infallibility with it's regard. How many denominations I say there are is not critical to my salvation. So if I am wrong I am quite ready to cast it off. That is the funny part about Protestants. The differences that divide you are doctrinal and thus do have effects on your salvation (though of course the OSAS false doctrine nullifies the word of God in this regard). Yet you all stand firm and defend your contradictory doctrines like there is no tommorrow and like you are infallibly certain of them.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

DHK,

Have you come up with that quote from a Church authority or document of any sort regarding someone claiming that an all celibate priesthood is doctrine. Law is not the same as doctrine. A 55 mile per hour spead limit is not a doctrine. So when you come up with that quote from an encyclical, bull, catechism, proceedings of an ecumenical council, church father, even an orthodox bishop of the Catholic Church, or any official Church source that says that this discipline is doctrine I would really love to see it. You have claimed it is doctrine now support it. After all these documents that I mentioned are quite historical and quite available on the internet. Just go to the vatican website. New Advent.org is another good source. And Catholic Information Resources. I can give you some pointers on websearches as I have done some on this topic already. Happy searching.

Quick question also. Do women in your Church wear head coverings?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Quick question also. Do women in your Church wear head coverings?

You bring up a good question, which hopefully can shed light on your own position of celibacy which is indeed doctrine. It is a teaching of the church. That is what makes it doctrine. It is just that simple.

Yes, women in our church wear head coverings. It is not a tradition, nor is it a discipline in the sense that you understand it. They wear a head covering because the Bible teaches it. It is a doctrine that is plainly taught in the Word of God.

1Cor.11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

It is not my purpose to discuss this topic in this thread. But we believe these verses speak of a head covering in the church. This is what Paul was TEACHING Teaching means doctrine. It is a doctrinal matter. Having said that, we don't force people to do it either. It must come as a conviction from the heart. But that is the standard of our church. it is Biblical, based on the teaching of the Bible, a doctrine or teaching.

Likewise you have the teaching or doctrine of the celibacy of the priesthood. And it would be foolish to deny it. This is what the Church teaches: that priests need to be celibate. That is their teaching; that is their doctrine. If it isn't you hypocritically speak out of both sides of your mouth.
DHK

 

[neal4christ]

How many denominations there are is not doctrinal Neal. Thus I do not claim nor does anyone in the Catholic Church claim infallibility with it's regard. How many denominations I say there are is not critical to my salvation. So if I am wrong I am quite ready to cast it off. That is the funny part about Protestants. The differences that divide you are doctrinal and thus do have effects on your salvation (though of course the OSAS false doctrine nullifies the word of God in this regard). Yet you all stand firm and defend your contradictory doctrines like there is no tommorrow and like you are infallibly certain of them.

Is that all you have to say, Thessalonian? After you talk about egg on my face in another thread? Come on, now. Does you pride know no end? Hey, I have openly admitted when I am wrong before. Don't preach to the choir, my friend.

How about just a simple, "Yes, I was wrong. I used numbers that I never bothered to verify as if they were truth." That's it, my friend.

I think you are just not very happy because someone called you on your inflated numbers. It makes you argument look overwhelming when you can say 20,000 or more. Oh well, I will assume you will stop misusing these large numbers and will be a little more honest. Just remember all this when you start coming down on Protestants so hard when they misuse data. It does not excuse them, but remember, you were there doing the same thing too.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I really would like to know how many books you have read by MacArthur, Svendsen, or White. I asked it in the other thread numerous times, but you refuse to answer.

 

[thessalonian]

"How about just a simple, "Yes, I was wrong. I used numbers that I never bothered to verify as if they were truth." That's it, my friend."

First of all I am not admitting that I was wrong because when I used the numbers it was only in a quiptic ribbing fashion. In jest so to speak. Not as dogmatic fact. Of course you, being the arguementive sort would not have been able to tell that from reading the 2 times that I quoted the number. But then I am the creator of the words so I do know and I can tell you that that is what was the spirit they were written in. So many times Protestants miss the spirit of God's holy word so this does not surprize me of you.

"I think you are just not very happy because someone called you on your inflated numbers. It makes you argument look overwhelming when you can say 20,000 or more. Oh well, I will assume you will stop misusing these large numbers and will be a little more honest. "

First of all they are not my numbers. Secondly I reffered who I got them from and thirdly I personally have not verified them as true or false and I read your analysis and do not accept all of it. Yet my time is very limited on this board these days.

"Just remember all this when you start coming down on Protestants so hard when they misuse data. It does not excuse them, but remember, you were there doing the same thing too.""

There is a difference. There "facts and numbers" must be true in order for their authorority structure to stand. Mine simply do not. It is my doctrine (in as much as it conforms to the one holy catholic and apostolic church, of course where I am wrong I submit to the Church) that must stand. Your doctrine cannot completely stand and you know it. You guys always have to go beyond doctrine to justify yourselves. When the arguements run out you turn to Catholics murding people and priestly pedophiles. (not you personally, I am making a general statement here). Not recognizing that this makes no difference in whether these incidents have any bearing on truth.



""P.S. I really would like to know how many books you have read by MacArthur, Svendsen, or White. I asked it in the other thread numerous times, but you refuse to answer. ""

I did answer. I suggest you go back on that thread and look up my posts. I told you I have not read any of their books but have listened to Mr. White on tape many times and Mr. Svedson on the radio on the Hank Hanagraph show and a couple others. I have also exchanged niceties with both Mr. White and Mr. Svedson over the internet. I have also listened to Johnny Mac on the radio many times, some with regard to what he says about Catholicism. So now who is being honest. You better make sure you have all the information before you post a lie Neal. Go back and check. It's in the same post where I said you guys have some sort of a problem with everything having to be in a book before it is true. I told you this information but you did not dilegently go and check all of my posts before you made this disparaging statement about me. calling my character in to question. Naughty Naughty, Perhaps you owe me an apology.

Don't worry, I still like you and will gratiously accept your apology.

Blessings

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

""P.S. I really would like to know how many books you have read by MacArthur, Svendsen, or White. I asked it in the other thread numerous times, but you refuse to answer. ""

I did answer. I suggest you go back on that thread and look up my posts. I told you I have not read any of their books but have listened to Mr. White on tape many times and Mr. Svedson on the radio on the Hank Hanagraph show and a couple others. I have also exchanged niceties with both Mr. White and Mr. Svedson over the internet. I have also listened to Johnny Mac on the radio many times, some with regard to what he says about Catholicism. So now who is being honest. You better make sure you have all the information before you post a lie Neal. Go back and check. It's in the same post where I said you guys have some sort of a problem with everything having to be in a book before it is true. I told you this information but you did not dilegently go and check all of my posts before you made this disparaging statement about me. calling my character in to question. Naughty Naughty, Perhaps you owe me an apology.

Don't worry, I still like you and will gratiously accept your apology.

Blessings

I have read both threads. Thessalonian if any one needs to apologize the onus would be on you, for you have not answered Neal's question, you have only skirted around the question, and the issues.

Let me ask it again, and rephrase it in my own words:
1. What specific books by the authors that Neal has mentioned have you read from cover to cover. Please give the name of the book and the author, and if possible the date it was written. Clear enough?

2. From the information that you gleaned from those books list (itemize) point by point, the issues that these authors bring forth that you do not agree with, or that you think they give unfair treatment to (especially in reagards to MacArthur's writings). If your cop out is that you would have to quote the whole book you fail. List some of the major things you disagree with and give good reasons why. Give adequate refutation if that is what it takes. Is that clear enough?
Do you think that you would be able to do this for us?
DHK

 

[thessalonian]

"I have read both threads. Thessalonian if any one needs to apologize the onus would be on you, for you have not answered Neal's question, you have only skirted around the question, and the issues."

Well DHK I did just answer his question.
I believe if you will look on the other thread he speaks of you will see the answer to this mystery of why it would seem like I hadn't answered it before and my apology as well as my request for his. As for not answering your questions, I have answer a good many and most of it has been wasted on the ignorant. Don't be too offended. I am ignorant of nuclear physics. Compared to God we are all as ignorant as ants and then some.

As for yours and Neals little study, if I get around to it I will provide Neal with more examples than the one I have already provided. I am rather busy this weekend and have better things to do than throwing scraps to people who don't care about my answers anyway. But when I have some spare time I will provide more examples.

Your bravado on this board is really getting quite amusing by the way.

God bless

[ September 27, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

Your bravado on this board is really getting quite amusing by the way.

Prov.14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
9 Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Prov.14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
9 Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

You accused Thess of skirting the issues and not answering a question.

Now you are telling us that is sin?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Prov.14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
9 Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

You accused Thess of skirting the issues and not answering a question.

Now you are telling us that is sin? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I simply quoted Scripture. If the shoe fits wear it.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Prov.14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
9 Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

You accused Thess of skirting the issues and not answering a question.

Now you are telling us that is sin? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I simply quoted Scripture. If the shoe fits wear it. </font>[/QUOTE]So this is scripture? It looks like an accusation to me.

"for you have not answered Neal's question, you have only skirted around the question, and the issues."

I think if you look at my post just above it you will see that I directly answered Neal's questoin about whether I had read any of the books in question. I quite clearly and directly said no. I also explain in another thread that I had written a post a few days ago directly answering that question and that somehow it did not get posted. Perhaps my mistake (most likely) or perhaps the post got lost in the transmission. I truly thought it was out there and Neal had missed it. But of course to DHK has to paint any Catholic as a liar since it fits his sterotypes and biggotry. By the way only a fool would say that someone who just directly answered a question hadn't answered it.

Blessings

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Prov.14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
9 Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

You accused Thess of skirting the issues and not answering a question.

Now you are telling us that is sin? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I simply quoted Scripture. If the shoe fits wear it. </font>[/QUOTE]So this is scripture? It looks like an accusation to me.

"for you have not answered Neal's question, you have only skirted around the question, and the issues."

I think if you look at my post just above it you will see that I directly answered Neal's questoin about whether I had read any of the books in question. I quite clearly and directly said no. I also explain in another thread that I had written a post a few days ago directly answering that question and that somehow it did not get posted. Perhaps my mistake (most likely) or perhaps the post got lost in the transmission. I truly thought it was out there and Neal had missed it. But of course to DHK has to paint any Catholic as a liar since it fits his sterotypes and biggotry. By the way only a fool would say that someone who just directly answered a question hadn't answered it.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

 

[thessalonian]

"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

I take it you think you can judge me.

That would be a fool saying that he is God. Didn't Lucifer try that route.

God Bless you GB

 

[neal4christ]

First of all I am not admitting that I was wrong because when I used the numbers it was only in a quiptic ribbing fashion. In jest so to speak. Not as dogmatic fact.

Hmmm...sure could have fooled me all the times I have seen Catholics toss around these numbers. I will have to remember the "I was just joking" line next time I get caught peddling false information.

Of course you, being the arguementive sort would not have been able to tell that from reading the 2 times that I quoted the number.

Ah, yes. Now I am a type.

If you feel that way, so be it. But I must remind you, you argue a good bit yourself, my friend. And you seem to think everyone is always against you. Anywho, I was more concerned with the big picture. I know every Catholic here now denies it, but I have seen numbers of 20,000+ Protestant denominations tossed around numerous times since I have been here. Why do you think a Protestant started this thread and asked for some proof? Come on, now. I wish those who use such arguments against Protestants would at least own up that they were less that totally honest.

So many times Protestants miss the spirit of God's holy word so this does not surprize me of you.

Were you trying to make any point here or just try to belittle me?

Secondly I reffered who I got them from and thirdly I personally have not verified them as true or false and I read your analysis and do not accept all of it.

Hah! This is your excuse? Give me a break. You should have NEVER used the numbers if you did not know what they were talking about. That is simple logic. And what don't you agree with my analysis? Really, there is no analysis! It is straight from the book you appealed to as your source. My, talk about distrust. Come off the conspiracy theories, my friend.

There is a difference. There "facts and numbers" must be true in order for their authorority structure to stand. Mine simply do not.

Huh? I am not following you here in the least bit. So false information and false testimony is okay in the Catholic church?

Your doctrine cannot completely stand and you know it. You guys always have to go beyond doctrine to justify yourselves.

What in the world are you talking about?

When the arguements run out you turn to Catholics murding people and priestly pedophiles. (not you personally, I am making a general statement here).

Thank-you for clarifying, but why use the plural "you?" That includes me. Anywho, you don't start calling Baptists KKK members and such? Remember, practice what you preach.

I did answer. I suggest you go back on that thread and look up my posts.

Not at all to my knowledge when I last posted on this thread.

Johnny Mac

Go ahead, I want to hear it from you one time. Pope Johnny P or Pope John Pauly. Come on, show you absolute lack of respect for others. Please, please!

So now who is being honest. You better make sure you have all the information before you post a lie Neal. Go back and check. It's in the same post where I said you guys have some sort of a problem with everything having to be in a book before it is true. I told you this information but you did not dilegently go and check all of my posts before you made this disparaging statement about me. calling my character in to question. Naughty Naughty, Perhaps you owe me an apology.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you on planet Earth? Show me please. I asked you about BOOKS. Not what you listened to.

Don't worry, I still like you and will gratiously accept your apology.

When I have something to apologize about, I will.

I find this amusing that you see me as your enemy. I am not a Catholic hating basher. I don't use half-truths and untruths. If I do, I am man enough to retract and admit I was wrong. Show me where I have lied about you or Catholics, and if it is a lie, I will gladly apologize. I have read books written by your guys and have studied and pondered things about Catholicism. I venture to say that I have been far more open and friendly with your side than you have ever been for my side.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[Stephen III]

DHK wrote:

This is what the Church teaches: that priests need to be celibate. That is their teaching; that is their doctrine .

So.... if "what the Church teaches" = doctrine...,

And "what the Church teaches" is that the requirement of a celibate priesthood is to be held as a discipline and not a doctrine... then

Does that teaching mean it is "doctrine??!

By your own logic then it is church doctrine that the requirement of a celibate priesthood be held as a discipline and not a doctrine.

I guess it's ok for us to know better and for you guys to come to a round-about way of viewing the discipline in the same manner

 

[thessalonian]

"Hmmm...sure could have fooled me all the times I have seen Catholics toss around these numbers. I will have to remember the "I was just joking" line next time I get caught peddling false information. "

Ah, another Protestant who can read Catholics hearts and minds and intentions. Are you calling me a liar? If so go right ahead and put it in black and white.

Further, you have not proven the number to be false contrary to your high opinion of your posts.

I really am beginning to wonder what your purpose is on this board any more other than to be a gnat buzzing around catholics heads trying to show them to be inferior. You do not engage in any significant theological discussion. Seems that realtivism is the mode you have embraced.

I am done wasting my time with your petty little posts Neal. Your a biggot as much as DHK.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Stephen III:
I guess it's ok for us to know better and for you guys to come to a round-about way of viewing the discipline in the same manner

I accept your definitions as you defined them from the Catholic point of view. And you gave a good explanation. My question is: What right does the Catholic Church have to change the meanings of the words "doctrine" and "discipline" from they way that they are used in the Bible, and from how they are defined in the dictionary? Isn't this just a bit misleading, as to fit your own theology into the Bible where the Bible doesn't teach such a thing.

Neo-othodoxy does the same thing. It takes the great themes of the Bible: justification, grace, atonement, propitiation, righteousness, etc., and redefines them. Thus when we speak of something like the substitutionary atonement for our sins by the blood of Christ, they will agree with it, but have redefined it so that they mean something entirely different. Confusing, yes!
Words have meanings! It is not our right to redefine them at our will and whim just to fit our own theology.
DHK

[ October 01, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
I am done wasting my time with your petty little posts Neal. Your a biggot as much as DHK.

Like your friend T2U, a very good defence for the topic at hand: "30,000 Protestant denominations." When you have nothing good to say just ridicule. It seems to be a regular pattern around here.
DHK

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And hiz spellin ain't two gud eether.