Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[ptl4evr]

Originally posted by riverm:

I have been a lurker on this board for more than 5 years and any Catholic that posts on here is banned within weeks, so you’ll find no Catholics to debate and if so, it usually doesn’t last long before they are banned. What I’ve found is that Baptist aren’t tolerant of other denominations in debating especially when they are being taken to the wood shed…

I look forward to your PM. I’d love to see you or ascund debate some real Catholic apologists. Maybe you guys could team-up?

AMEN TO THAT ONE!!!!!!

 

[Pickerel]

By the grace of God I am finally breaking the fundamentalist hold that I’ve been in for the better part of my life. Here’s what I concluded:

I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, not may ordinary men or women do. Therefore, I have to rely on how men interpret the words of Christ. Take John 6 for a prime example, a straightforward reading of John 6 and one would agree with the Catholic Mass in relation to the elements.

Time to start reading your Bible riverm...

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received from him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man should teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I’ve always been taught that the “Whore” mentioned in Revelation is the RCC, even though scripture never mentions this and every commentary I have on Revelation doesn’t mention the RCC as the “Whore”, but David Hunt believes this to be true so It must be. Since most, not all, fundamentalist are little individual popes anyway.

It is a well known fact that Rome has been called babylon since ancient times...Which Great City sits on seven Hills..."Pittsburgh"?

If I were a "Pope" I would not have anyone submit to me for their Salvation, nor would I claim to be Vicar of Christ, nor would I put Mary on a level with Jesus(for starters)...

How can I ask the Holy Spirit to lead me in truth, when 1500 other denominations are asking the Holy Spirit the same thing and all coming to different interpretations of scripture?

While all denominations do not agree on every aspect of Doctrines, no one is Saved by these denominations either! However we are all Saved by Faith alone in Christ alone!! Anyone trying to add works to that is only deceiving themselves!

I don’t consider the RCC cultic or non-Christian. They believe in the Trinity, they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus the Son of God, that He was crucified for the sins of the world and that God resurrected Him on the third day and that He will return again to judge.

The Devil also believes all of these things...hope your not trying to tell me he's saved...?

There are other doctrinal issues that I disagree with, heck Baptists even disagree among themselves on many, many theological issues. But again, it’s all about interpretation. Who's right, who's wrong and how do we know?

I believe in a Pre trib, the next guy believes in a Mid trib...BIG DEAL!!! We ALL Agree that ONLY CHRIST SAVES, not of our own deeds but of ONLY HIS Sacrifice at Cavalry are we saved...(Pretty Simple)...

I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, not may ordinary men or women do. Therefore, I have to rely on how men interpret the words of Christ. Take John 6 for a prime example, a straightforward reading of John 6 and one would agree with the Catholic Mass in relation to the elements.

Scripture is all about taking things into CONTEXT...We are told we should pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin...Should we do that? Lets say perchance that you have to bring the Eucharist home to give to an ailing family member(as often the case), you put it on the kitchen table and go and get the sick family member...while you are gone the family dog jumps up on the table and eats the "Wafer"...are you going to tell me that Christ now resides in your dog??? A little thought is needed here...!

Only Christ Saves

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pickerel:
To have a debate without being personally attacked, would be nice! I would challenge anyone to refute what I have said using Scripture, but only please do so without the Personal insults...

Hmmm, I did that. You brushed me off because it left you in a quandry of error. And you then went on to make false accusations of me. If you want to have a debate without being personally attacked, look in the mirror.

 

[Chemnitz]

Scripture is all about taking things into CONTEXT...We are told we should pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin...Should we do that? Lets say perchance that you have to bring the Eucharist home to give to an ailing family member(as often the case), you put it on the kitchen table and go and get the sick family member...while you are gone the family dog jumps up on the table and eats the "Wafer"...are you going to tell me that Christ now resides in your dog??? A little thought is needed here...!

Now this just absurd.
This situation wouldn't even happen in a home visit. I know, I have done visits on a regular basis and taken communion to the people nearly everytime. But to answer your absurd question a RCC'er would be horrified by the idea and say yes if it were already consecrated. I would be annoyed but say no, because the promise of the Real presence is connected with the sacrament and the union between Christ and the elements is found only in the sacrament as it is received and consumed by people.

I would love to see you try this argument with a practiced RCC apologist, they would eat you alive.

Also, while the doctrine of the Real Presence is scriptural, Jn 6 is not the text to which one should go. While a Christian cannot help but see the correlation between Jn 6 and the promises of Christ in Holy Communion, it is not a text expounding on that teaching. If we are to see and explain the teaching of the Real Presence we must look to the verses where it is expounded in clearly and more fully, namely the words of institution in the Gospels, and 1 Cor 10 and 11.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

This whole thing about debating - even with "a practiced RCC apologist" misses the point.

Our debating should bring us closer to the truths of God's Word as our theological opponents note weaknesses in our arguments and we in theirs.

Tragically, the impersonal forum is only useful for exchanging presuppositions without any real cycle of growth and coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Rather than throw "my" presuppositions against "your" presuppositions, why not simply start with God's Word. By this I mean at the basics - not throwing verses around. BobRyan and Whetstone are great examples of how useless this tactic can be.

Instead, let's look at something meaningful. I like justification. Both sides hold this to be meaningful. Since there are only 40 occurrences of this word in the Bible, the study should be "easy."

However, when I started a thread, nobody ever looked at the lexical evidences that I presented. I learned from that how useless forums can be.

Forums tend to be trivial powerless slander stages.
Lloyd