False Christs

[DHK]

DHK, before I answer any of your questions I will remind you that being we have different interpretations of the Holy Bible we will never agree with one another. How do you expect Catholics and Protestants to agree when you Protestants have thousands of different conflicting interpretations against each other. Please don't tell me that you all believe in the basics. because we Catholics along with all other Apostolic Churches agree on not only the basic tenets of the Christian Faith but also on the important Doctrines.
Your impossible Protestant method of having the Bible explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation, is just plain indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the 'Bible-only' theory be defended.

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Ghost, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of Gods law and Gods word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.

Matthew 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the.... ".
Please explain how Jesus intended [as you believe ] Holy Scripture to have more than that One True Interpretation as given to those who compiled the completed Holy Bible ?
I will now carry-on answering your query from me on Romans 8:16.

Many of those who interpret the Bible differently don't have a relationship with Christ and therefore find many things to disagree on. Exclude those people and you will find a great deal of harmony in the evangelical camp.
But it is hard for you to know where to look for that harmony. It is hard for many to discern who has a religion and who has a relationship.

I love the Word of God, not because it is a textbook and it is my profession, but rather because it is my food that nourishes me, my lamp that guides me; it is the living Word that speaks to my heart. It is far more than just a text.
It is God's word and what he has inspired for me. He speaks to me through the Scriptures.
It would be very foolish on my part to believe that there is any other way that God could communicate such as through a Catechism written by man, or fallible traditions passed on by fallible man.

The Holy Spirit dwells within me guiding my ever step.
I am a missionary. He has led me to some nations that few others would ever consider going. I follow His will for my life, even if it means giving up my comfort zone.

 

[lakeside]

DHK,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe . The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you. { 2Peter 1:20 }

The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century. Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century. Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church. Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

That is the Catholic position. We need an authority outside of Scripture to tell us what Scriptures are inspired, and what they mean. Moses was the one who infallibly interpreted the Scriptures for the people. The people didn't go off (like you Protestants) and interpret the Scriptures on their own. They were under the authority of Moses. This was the function of Moses in the Old Covenant, and is the function of Peter (and his succesors) in the New Covenant.

Instead of tackling my arguments and inquiries head-on, you rather stay in your comfort zone and argue that nothing convinces you. An honest opponent would actually address the Fathers, exegete Scripture and offer his own patristic and biblical evidences to support his own positions. You don't appear to have any interest in the truth. You mentioned that you are an ex-Catholic but you never knew Jesus or the Bible as a Catholic, that can not be true, because Jesus was always there in His Church waiting for you, but you were not then ready for Him. And, if you had listen you would have heard the Holy Bible being read to you at every Mass.

In fact, most likely if you and some of the other non-Catholics really knew early Christian history or the Church Fathers, you all would have stayed Catholic. I often read Protestant claim that "the whole nation of Israel was guided by these books," that statement is misleading. In fact, it is simply wrong. Moses had those books read only every seven years {Deut 31:9-12}. So the people weren't principally "guided by these books." They were "guided" by Moses, the authority that God appointed over them. God didn't change the program with the New Testament. While we still read the books, we are "guided" by those God appointed over us - the pope, bishops, priests and deacons.

Regarding Moses again, let me ask you this. And don't blow my question off as "insignificant" just because you can't answer it while denying your Protestant position. When Moses was in authority, Korah and his followers rebelled against him, because of their rebellion, God caused the earth to swallow them whole. In{ Jude 1:11}, he warns New Testament Christians not to perish in Korah's rebellion. The question is this: Why would Jude give such a warning to New Testament Christians if we had no people in the Church in authority over us?

You cannot guarantee me that your interpretation of Scripture is correct. You are only fooling yourself if you think so, and that is why there are 30,000 + conflicting different Protestant denominations with everyone of them claiming their's is the one true interpretation while done are. The Church that compiled the Canon of the Holy Bible only has the One True Interpretation. That Church [ the only 'church' founded by Jesus on His Apostles ] alone was guided by the True Holy Spirit ,not the confused holy spirit with it's 30,000 plus conflicting interpretations.

 

[Darrell C]

The only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end – but this is something a Christian cannot know during his life, and this necessarily imposes uncertainty upon him until the end. We know that salvation is ours to lose, although nobody can take it from us, but we can severe our relationship from Christ, we can do it to ourselves. For “once saved, always saved” Protestants, they don’t even know whether it is theirs to begin with.

This implies that a Christian who sins loses salvation, however, while God will judge the believer who sins, that judgment does not reverse the supernatural union between the believer and God, but affects the believer physically only.

That is why Paul wrote...


1 Corinthians 11:27-30

King James Version (KJV)

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.


While not dogmatic about it, I think it was also Paul who wrote...


Hebrews 12:5-8

King James Version (KJV)

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.


Christians do not sin without consequence, but losing their salvation, or relinquishing their salvation, or a mandate to sustain their Salvation...are unbiblical concepts designed to bring men under a yoke of bondage again.

Great for attendance and tithes, but does absolutely nothing to educate the Christian soteriologically.

Understanding how we are saved is the only way a believer can gain assurance of salvation. If the believer maintains a pagan view that he must perform for salvation, ignoring Scripture's clear teaching that man could not save himself thus requiring the Work of Christ to begin with, then he denies Christ Himself.

We can't say "I am saved by Christ" as well as "I must do this, that, or the other," and reconcile the two. Either Christ died to save us, or we are saving ourselves through works.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

DHK,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe . The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you. { 2Peter 1:20 }

The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century.

While a complete version of the New Testament may not have been compiled until the end of the first century, that does not detract from the fact that the New Testament was being circulated among the churches well before that.

We also note the reliance of the Apostles on the Hebrews Scriptures, drawing a conclusion that the Word of God is so consistent that both can be presented to bring about God's desired result in giving His Word to begin with.

An example of the Word of God being present prior to a written form can be seen in Abel's offering. We are never told, nor do we see recorded a command for sacrifice, yet here we have Abel bringing sacrifice, presumably, as all of Scripture presents, for sin.

It is not necessary for a complete Canon early in the first century to know that the Word of God was not only present in the early Church, but in fact turned the world upside down.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Church of rome takes the exact same stance as the watchtower and Mormons, as all of them state that the Lord has given their church the right way to divide the bible ...

NONE of them are of God though, as ALL of them have 'wrongly divided" the word of god, in order to force their own heresies and errors into it!

And if we went back to end of the 1st, NOT in 4th century, we would indeed have the OT canon of the sacred scriptures, and essentially all of the NT canon books have already being circulated and being accepted as inspired word of god, again, way before the RCC even came into existing. so the bible is alonr our source of all doctrines and practices, as it guided us way before the church of rome got here!

Those who are Catholic see salvation vested in that church, thru its sacraments of Grace, but the Bible plainly teaches to us that salvation is found in Jesus alone!

 

[DHK]

DHK,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe . The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you. { 2Peter 1:20 }

You offer no proof. You state the Catholic is the final authority with no proof. You won't debate me on the basis of Scripture.
Look at this Catholic link:
http://www.catholicireland.net/the-meaning-of-magisterium/
Not even the Magesterium is as authoritative as you presume it is, and the word didn't even appear until the 19th century.
The Catholic Church did not appear in history until the fourth century. How then could they determine the canon of scripture? This is just foolishness on your part which you refuse to take part in.

Before this state-church of Constantine which became the Catholic Church, there existed "churches" not The Church. You have not been able to prove me wrong.
You refuse to debate the biblical issues I put forth, and then accuse me of not addressing the real issues.

The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century.

No argument. The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem was formed ca. 30 A.D. by 120 disciples, and in Acts 2:41 it says that 3,000 were "added unto the "church" or assembly that was in Jerusalem. That is where they were. At that time the Apostles were receiving direct revelation from God.

Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century.

Your inference is that the Apostles were illiterate fishermen, stupid and ignorant, not able to tell which of their own writings were inspired and which were not. Stupidity was their main characteristic according to you. They were unable to teach the leaders of the very churches that they started what the scriptures were, which were inspired and which were not. You have a very dismal, almost blasphemous look on how the Bible came to be and on the character of the Biblical writers. That is a shame!
You pit their character against the monstrosity of the secular RCC.

Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority?

You just contradicted yourself.
First you admit that the Bible was completed at the end of the first century.
Well, the last of the apostles died at the end of the first century.
The first century is called "The apostolic age."
They were taught by the apostles, the very authors of the scriptures themselves. I think they would know what the scriptures teach, don't you?

The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible.

The Apostles were the church. That is what Jesus was speaking about in Mat.16:18. And they added unto it 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. That had nothing to do with Catholicism.

The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church.

Then you haven't looked at Acts 17:11; 1Cor.13:8-13; Isa.8:20;
The word "scripture" is used 21 times in the NT.
Paul said:
2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
--In this verse, the word for book:
books βιβλιον. It is biblios the word where we get Bible from.
Concerning this word A.T. Robertson says:

The books (ta biblia). Probably papyrus rolls. One can only guess what rolls the old preacher longs to have with him, probably copies of Old Testament books, possibly copies of his own letters, and other books used and loved. The old preacher can be happy with his books.

Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

No, you are wrong. There are many reasons to believe they are inspired. They were always considered inspired. Some of those reasons are called "internal reasons." They claim inspiration. Every time they say "Thus saith the Lord," it is a claim of inspiration. Moses continually quotes the actual words of God. You need a course on the inspiration of the Bible, and one not taught by the RCC.

That is the Catholic position. We need an authority outside of Scripture to tell us what Scriptures are inspired, and what they mean. Moses was the one who infallibly interpreted the Scriptures for the people. The people didn't go off (like you Protestants) and interpret the Scriptures on their own. They were under the authority of Moses. This was the function of Moses in the Old Covenant, and is the function of Peter (and his succesors) in the New Covenant.

Moses only wrote the first five books. Actually he probably edited them. They may have been written by many different authors, including Adam, Seth, Noah, and passed down until they got to the hand of Moses who, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, edited them all. That is a theory that some believe. Either way Moses is considered the author of the first five books.
There is one author that is older than Moses--one book that is older than Genesis. What is the oldest book in the Bible? It is the Book of Job. Job was a contemporary of Abraham. But Moses does not interpret Job for us.
There are 39 books of the OT; you are only speaking of 5 books. What about all the rest of them? They are not all under the authority of Moses! Obviously!

Instead of tackling my arguments and inquiries head-on, you rather stay in your comfort zone and argue that nothing convinces you.

Calling the kettle black here!

An honest opponent would actually address the Fathers, exegete Scripture and offer his own patristic and biblical evidences to support his own positions.

I offer you scripture most, and some history--both of which you ignore. You don't want to refute my posts because you can't.

You don't appear to have any interest in the truth. You mentioned that you are an ex-Catholic but you never knew Jesus or the Bible as a Catholic, that can not be true, because Jesus was always there in His Church waiting for you, but you were not then ready for Him. And, if you had listen you would have heard the Holy Bible being read to you at every Mass.

Does the spirit that dwells in you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God.
If so how?
Do you have a relationship or a religion? Which do you trust?
Jesus has never been in the RCC. Jesus does not go around murdering millions and raping thousands, hiding its pedophiles.
The Bible was read, not preached, not expounded, and the gospel message was never preached, not once. Don't even infer that I am lying.

In fact, most likely if you and some of the other non-Catholics really knew early Christian history or the Church Fathers, you all would have stayed Catholic.

It is from most of the ECF that our current heresies have come.

 

[DHK]

I often read Protestant claim that "the whole nation of Israel was guided by these books," that statement is misleading. In fact, it is simply wrong. Moses had those books read only every seven years {Deut 31:9-12}. So the people weren't principally "guided by these books." They were "guided" by Moses, the authority that God appointed over them. God didn't change the program with the New Testament. While we still read the books, we are "guided" by those God appointed over us - the pope, bishops, priests and deacons.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Sit down with a Bible and read and study it. Moses led the people out of Egypt and through the wilderness. But Moses himself never entered into the promised land. It was Joshua that takes the nation into the promised land. From there they go through a number of conquests, then a period of judges, and then quite a lengthy period of kings as the nation becomes a monarchy. It splits into two: the north and the south. Then each go into captivity. Moses had a small part in its overall history.
The leaders of the NT people and NT churches were never Catholics.

Regarding Moses again, let me ask you this. And don't blow my question off as "insignificant" just because you can't answer it while denying your Protestant position. When Moses was in authority, Korah and his followers rebelled against him, because of their rebellion, God caused the earth to swallow them whole. In{ Jude 1:11}, he warns New Testament Christians not to perish in Korah's rebellion. The question is this: Why would Jude give such a warning to New Testament Christians if we had no people in the Church in authority over us?

The warning is given to Christians in general. It is an epistle written for believers "to contend for the faith."

Unlike Paul, Jude is not writing to a church or pastor. He starts his epistle this way:
Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
--Then he states his purpose in writing:
Jud 1:3 Beloved,...it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--The faith once delivered to the saints is "the faith of the Apostles." It is not the faith of the RCC.
In this defense he starts out by warning about false teachers, which is the main focus of his letter:

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

He is very descriptive about these men telling of their character and deeds.
Then we come to verse 11:
Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
In Numbers 22 Korah, Nathan and Abiru opposed the leadership of Moses and Aaron.
In this respect these false teachers are opposing the leadership of the apostles.
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James, who is also the brother of Jesus. This James is the pastor of the church in Jerusalem. It is at the church in Jerusalem that most of the apostles resided for some time until after Acts 15.
Nevertheless, the apostles were the authors of the NT, and these false teachers were opposing their teaching. It had nothing to do with bishops and elders of the churches. It had to do more with NT revelation.

He continues on in his description of these false teachers and then turns his attention to his readers and says:
Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
--They were to remember the words of the Apostles. Don't listen to these false teachers who are in opposition to the Apostles but remember the words of the Apostles themselves.

You cannot guarantee me that your interpretation of Scripture is correct.

I can guarantee you that the interpretation I gave you is 100% correct.
I can do that because I have answered it with Scripture.
Besides that, I don't think you will find here many that disagree with me in this answer.

You are only fooling yourself if you think so, and that is why there are 30,000 + conflicting different Protestant denominations with everyone of them claiming their's is the one true interpretation while done are.

You are only deceiving yourself.

The Church that compiled the Canon of the Holy Bible only has the One True Interpretation. That Church [ the only 'church' founded by Jesus on His Apostles ] alone was guided by the True Holy Spirit ,not the confused holy spirit with it's 30,000 plus conflicting interpretations.

The RCC burned Bibles.
The RCC did not allow the common person to have a Bible.
The RCC does not allow the common person to read and interpret the Bible for themselves even thought that is what the Bible commands us to do.
The RCC was directly responsible for that period of time in history known as the "Dark Ages."
They suppressed knowledge, and suppressed the truth.
You are only deceiving yourself.

 

[lakeside]

Protestants, where does the Bible say that you are to use the Bible to determine “your doctrine?” Did the early Christians use the Bible to determine their doctrine? No! They didn’t have a Bible, at least not a Bible that had a N T in it, that they could turn to in order to determine doctrine. They had their doctrines in place before a single word of the New Testament was written. The New Testament, then, was simply putting down in writing the teaching of the Apostles, which they had received from Jesus Christ Himself, and which the early Church already believed and taught. They did not determine their doctrines from the written Word, as their doctrines had already been taught to them by the Church. So, when Christians today turn to the Bible to determine their doctrines, they are doing things exactly backwards from the way the early Christians did them. As Catholic Ch ristians, we do not turn, individually, or with each successive generation, to the Bible to determine our doctrine. Our doctrine is indeed in Scripture – directly or indirectly – and is confirmed by Scripture, but our doctrine existed before the written New Testament did. The written New Testament is based upon our doctrine, upon the sure Word of God that had been passed on orally from the Apostles to the early Church, not the other way around

In Protestantism each individual believer gets to determine his or her doctrine based on his or her own private, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of the Bible. And, if those doctrines conflict, is there anyone you can turn to in order to decide the matter so that the people of God may be sure that they have the truth? Some authority that can rule authoritatively in such disputes? No, at least, not if you’re a Protestant.You must turn to the Authority of His Church [ Matt.18: 15-18 ] but ask yourself which church? Of course it must mean Christ's Church and Christs Church is formed on His Apostles [ Luke 10: 16, John 20:21; Matt.28: 18-20; ] Try and tell me Christ's Church is not built on His Apostles ??? [ Eph.2:19 ]

 

[BrotherJoseph]

DHK,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe . The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you. { 2Peter 1:20 }

Brother Lakeside none of those 3 passages you gave above state you need the church to interpret scripture. Believers have the Holy Spirit in them who guides them in truth, that is why John states, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, [U]and ye need not that any man teach you[/U]: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." ( 1 John 2:27)

Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church... That is the Catholic position. We need an authority outside of Scripture to tell us what Scriptures are inspired, and what they mean.

Brother Lakeside, Paul writes, " And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,U]which are able to make thee wise unto salvation [/U]through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.[/U]" (2 Timothy 3:15-17) Scripture states it makes us "wise unto salvation", and "that the man of God may be perfect" and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works", thus why would you need the church if scripture says it alone is able to accomplish these things? Also, given that this was one of it not the last book he wrote (2 Timothy 4:6), if there was some other apostolic authority other than the word of God, why didn't he tell us?

Also, why did Jesus constantly appeal to the scripture as the final court of appeal and criticize the church leaders saying, "it is written"? Jesus used this phrase 3 times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority with Satan. In addition, the Bible constantly warns us to "not to think of men above that which is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Finally, it is true that the New Testament speaks of following the "traditions" (= teachings) of the apostles. This is because the apostles were living authorities set up by Christ. (Matt 18:18, Acts 2:42, Ephesians 2:20). To have apostolic authority one must be able to perform apostolic signs as Paul wrote, " Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12) But since these special apostolic signs have ceased, there is no longer apostolic authority, except in the inspired writing of the apostles.

 

[lakeside]

BrotherJoseph,Jesus was speaking of the OT back then. I'd be careful if I was you about denying that Jesus gave His promise that he would always "protect" the "doctrinal Apostolic Traditional Teachings{ Luke 10:16, Matt.28:18-20, 1Tim. 3:14, John 10:16,} found only in His One True Universal Apostolic Church of{ Matt. 16: 15-19}.

Historical records tells us that Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith {Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17}. Christ said of his Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" {Luke 10:16}.

The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired, nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place? But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him {Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20}. If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.

The bottom line is that the truth of the Church is rooted from the foundation of Jesus and His apostles/successors. Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place. His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects 'solar scriptura' as a self-refuting principle.

Now will you show me Biblical proof of your church? Start by showing me where Jesus gave His Authority to a common, mere man or woman to invent a future church different from His apostolic Church as explained in{ Eph.2:19-20}.???

 

[Walter]

Many of those who interpret the Bible differently don't have a relationship with Christ and therefore find many things to disagree on. Exclude those people and you will find a great deal of harmony in the evangelical camp.
But it is hard for you to know where to look for that harmony. It is hard for many to discern who has a religion and who has a relationship.

I love the Word of God, not because it is a textbook and it is my profession, but rather because it is my food that nourishes me, my lamp that guides me; it is the living Word that speaks to my heart. It is far more than just a text.
It is God's word and what he has inspired for me. He speaks to me through the Scriptures.
It would be very foolish on my part to believe that there is any other way that God could communicate such as through a Catechism written by man, or fallible traditions passed on by fallible man.

The Holy Spirit dwells within me guiding my ever step.
I am a missionary. He has led me to some nations that few others would ever consider going. I follow His will for my life, even if it means giving up my comfort zone.

I had to chuckle when I read the comment you made which is bolded. Let's see, DHK. Within the 'evangelical camp' you have your Oneness Pentecostals, Charismatics, 'Easy believism' Baptists, Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel churches, Churches of Christ, SDA, and the list goes on and on. Of those examples I listed, how many of those are you in 'a great deal of harmony with'? Do you know what percent of the 'evangelical camp' those churches make up? I didn't even bother listing the liberal churches that I think you and I can agree are not in harmony with much of what you and I believe. I have been a member of the Baptist Board too long to know that your statement about 'harmony' within the 'evangelical camp' is ridiculous. The amount of cries of 'heretic, blasphemer, and apostate' that are bandied about on this board at fellow evangelicals tells me that harmony is an illusion. You question each others salvation all the time on this board even though there is a rule against it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I had to chuckle when I read the comment you made which is bolded. Let's see, DHK. Within the 'evangelical camp' you have your Oneness Pentecostals, Charismatics, 'Easy believism' Baptists, Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel churches, Churches of Christ, SDA, and the list goes on and on. Of those examples I listed, how many of those are you in 'a great deal of harmony with'? Do you know what percent of the 'evangelical camp' those churches make up? I didn't even bother listing the liberal churches that I think you and I can agree are not in harmony with much of what you and I believe. I have been a member of the Baptist Board too long to know that your statement about 'harmony' within the 'evangelical camp' is ridiculous. The amount of cries of 'heretic, blasphemer, and apostate' that are bandied about on this board at fellow evangelicals tells me that harmony is an illusion. You question each others salvation all the time on this board even though there is a rule against it.

There are indeed concensus on the essential doctrines of the christian faith, as many of those that you listed would be seen as being same as the RCC, as groups outside of the true church of Christ!

And that we differ on secondary non essentials is just the same as within even your RCC...

 

[BrotherJoseph]

.

Now will you show me Biblical proof of your church? Start by showing me where Jesus gave His Authority to a common, mere man or woman to invent a future church different from His apostolic Church as explained in{ Eph.2:19-20}.???

Brother Lakeside,

I do not have the time to respond to all you have posted today. Lord willing I will be able to do so tomorrow. The following are signs (characteristics) that were described in the New Testament of the apostolic church. I have not provided the scripture references for each sign, but if you desire that, please let me know via a post and I will be happy to send them to you. My church has each sign, however the Catholic church does not-

Written by Sylvester Hassell

By Sylvester Hassell

Published in Hassell's History, 1886

Shorter, Condensed Text

1st Mark. The apostolic church consisted only of those persons who had been convicted of sin by the Holy Ghost, and who had given signs of repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

2nd Mark. True baptism,--the (full body) immersion, of believers in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

3rd Mark. The members being baptized believers, came frequently around the Lord’s table, to commemorate the sufferings and death of their precious Redeemer, by partaking of the common bread to represent His broken body, and common wine, to represent His shed blood for them.

4th Mark. The maintenance of strict discipline.

5th Mark. The independent or congregation polity or government of each local church, subject only to the Headship of Christ; all the local apostolic churches being united by no outward bond of force, but by an inward bond of love.

6th Mark. The religious liberty, soul-freedom, a complete separation of church and state, the entire independence of each church from all state control, so far as regards the membership, ministry, organization, faith, worship and discipline of the church.

7th Mark. With a few exceptions, the members were generally poor, obscure, unlearned, afflicted, despised and persecuted.

8th Mark. The fraternal equality, the essential priesthood, of all the members, in accordance with which fact they choose to office among them those of their number whom they perceive to be already qualified thereunto by the spirit of God--there being but two classes of officers, bishops, or elders, or pastors, and deacons; the fraternal equality of all the members involving the eternal equality of the ministry.

9th Mark. Possession of an humble, God-called and God-qualified ministry.

10th Mark. That while the ministry received voluntary help from the churches, they were not salaried, but labored themselves, more or less, for their own support.

11th Mark. The sending out of the divinely called and qualified ministry by the Holy Spirit in themselves and in the churches, their going forth, withersoever the Lord directed them, in simple dependence upon Him, and their preaching the gospel to every creature, whether Jew or Gentile, and especially shepherding the lambs and sheep of Christ.

12th Mark. That it--the church--was absolutely the only divinely recognized religious organization in the world.

 

[Protestant]

The only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end

Not true.

The superficial Roman ‘Christian’ Papa is an idolatrous Christ-hater who daily revels in sin as the Man of Sin, who makes God-like claims to have the power to create the true God from bread, who claims to be Head of the Christian Church, infallible in matters of faith and practice, and who subverts the moral laws of God by condoning restrictions against the natural order, such as marriage; thereby promoting a religious shelter for homosexuals and pedophiles who have been given ‘license’ to torture, rape and sodomize children since the founding of its apostate Church in the first millennium.

The average superficial Roman ‘Christian’ is willfully impervious to the enormous public outcry of rage and shame when media exposure of the sexual and monetary sins committed by the Roman priesthood and Vatican Bank became public knowledge.

The biblically contradictory teachings of the Roman Church, as well as the numerous prophecies condemning the Roman Church as Mystery Babylon, its Pope Antichrist, and its priesthood limbs of Antichrist (while at the same time warning the laity to ‘come out of her’) have no relevance to the superficial Roman ‘Christian.’

One day the Vatican will be destroyed as was the Jewish Temple, to the wonderment of the secular and superficial Christian world, and to the joy of the true saints in Heaven and Earth. (Rev.18:8-11; Rev.19:1-8)

It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome and in the Church of England there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name…..Popery anywhere, whether it be Anglican or Romish, is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it.

It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and sink to rise no more. But if we can pray against error for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.” (C. H. Spurgeon, Sermon 717, Oct. 21, 1866)

The Baptist London Confession of Faith agrees:

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 ) (http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html)

 

[Walter]

Not true.

The superficial Roman ‘Christian’ Papa is an idolatrous Christ-hater who daily revels in sin as the Man of Sin, who makes God-like claims to have the power to create the true God from bread, who claims to be Head of the Christian Church, infallible in matters of faith and practice, and who subverts the moral laws of God by condoning restrictions against the natural order, such as marriage; thereby promoting a religious shelter for homosexuals and pedophiles who have been given ‘license’ to torture, rape and sodomize children since the founding of its apostate Church in the first millennium.

The average superficial Roman ‘Christian’ is willfully impervious to the enormous public outcry of rage and shame when media exposure of the sexual and monetary sins committed by the Roman priesthood and Vatican Bank became public knowledge.

The biblically contradictory teachings of the Roman Church, as well as the numerous prophecies condemning the Roman Church as Mystery Babylon, its Pope Antichrist, and its priesthood limbs of Antichrist (while at the same time warning the laity to ‘come out of her’) have no relevance to the superficial Roman ‘Christian.’

One day the Vatican will be destroyed as was the Jewish Temple, to the wonderment of the secular and superficial Christian world, and to the joy of the true saints in Heaven and Earth. (Rev.18:8-11; Rev.19:1-8)



The Baptist London Confession of Faith agrees:

Lakeside, if your interested in any of the other vile anti-Catholic sewage this guy spews, check out his website. Oh, and he has Billy Graham, John Macarthur, Hank Hanegraaffe, Hal Lindsey, LaHaye, R.C. Sproul and a host of other evangelicals are on his hit-list too. To his credit, he pulls the covers on Chick Publications for their made up 'Jesuit priest' Alberto Rivera. I was surprised he would as usually 'any enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Like I said, if you want some chuckles, go to his website and see everyone (besides Catholics) that ol' Rand hates. But also look at the responses he has gotten from Catholics that tear apart his false accusations against the Church.

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/false_prophets/false_prophets.html
http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/false_ch/false_ch.html#

What a treat for Jesus!

 

[lakeside]

Protestant,the main difference between Catholics and non-Catholics is that Catholics accept Tradition and know they do, and non-Catholics accept Tradition, but don't know they do. You accept the canon of Scripture. You accept that abortion is a moral evil. You accept that a man and a woman must give each other consent in order for theirs to be a valid marriage. You accept that God is one in three persons, etc. But none of these things are expressly stated in Scripture. These teachings came down from the apostles, through the Catholic Church. You accept all of them, even though they are not in Scripture. Why? Because you accept apostolic tradition as well.

So you need to discern the difference between extra-biblical, and anti-biblical. There is nothing anti-biblical about any Catholic teaching, which would be impossible because the Church came before the Bible, and is the servant of Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture was written, copied, translated, handed down, preserved and canonized by the Catholic Church (which proves the Church – not the Scriptures – came first). Where do you really think the Bible came from? Paint me an historical picture. You, like many Protestants of your "tradition," simply ignore historical facts and treat the Bible as if it fell from the sky. That is simply ridiculous. The Bible came from the Catholic Church. The Church was born on Pentecost Sunday, and not a word of New Testament Scripture was written until at least ten years later. I challenge you, right now, to provide me any piece of evidence that refutes this claim.

Just because Jesus uses Scripture at times does not mean that Scripture is the only authority for Christians. In fact, Jesus never commanded any of His apostles to write anything down, and only five of the original apostles chose to write. Does this mean the other apostles were less obedient, or have less to say about Jesus? I don’t think so. Further, when Jesus was tempted in {Matt. 4:1-11}, He was not giving a definitive teaching on the formal sufficiency of Scripture. He was resisting temptation. The fact that the devil incorrectly interprets{ Psalm 91:11-12} in his efforts to tempt Jesus demonstrate that we need a properly appointed authority to interpret the Scriptures for us.

 

[DHK]

I had to chuckle when I read the comment you made which is bolded. Let's see, DHK. Within the 'evangelical camp' you have your Oneness Pentecostals, Charismatics, 'Easy believism' Baptists, Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel churches, Churches of Christ, SDA, and the list goes on and on. Of those examples I listed, how many of those are you in 'a great deal of harmony with'? Do you know what percent of the 'evangelical camp' those churches make up? I didn't even bother listing the liberal churches that I think you and I can agree are not in harmony with much of what you and I believe. I have been a member of the Baptist Board too long to know that your statement about 'harmony' within the 'evangelical camp' is ridiculous. The amount of cries of 'heretic, blasphemer, and apostate' that are bandied about on this board at fellow evangelicals tells me that harmony is an illusion. You question each others salvation all the time on this board even though there is a rule against it.

I shall laugh at you also if you are so naive to think that all those you listed are in "the evangelical camp."
Really, do some research before you post such nonsense.

 

[DHK]

Protestant,the main difference between Catholics and non-Catholics is that Catholics accept Tradition and know they do, and non-Catholics accept Tradition, but don't know they do. You accept the canon of Scripture. You accept that abortion is a moral evil. You accept that a man and a woman must give each other consent in order for theirs to be a valid marriage. You accept that God is one in three persons, etc. But none of these things are expressly stated in Scripture. These teachings came down from the apostles, through the Catholic Church. You accept all of them, even though they are not in Scripture. Why? Because you accept apostolic tradition as well.

So you need to discern the difference between extra-biblical, and anti-biblical. There is nothing anti-biblical about any Catholic teaching, which would be impossible because the Church came before the Bible, and is the servant of Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture was written, copied, translated, handed down, preserved and canonized by the Catholic Church (which proves the Church – not the Scriptures – came first). Where do you really think the Bible came from? Paint me an historical picture. You, like many Protestants of your "tradition," simply ignore historical facts and treat the Bible as if it fell from the sky. That is simply ridiculous. The Bible came from the Catholic Church. The Church was born on Pentecost Sunday, and not a word of New Testament Scripture was written until at least ten years later. I challenge you, right now, to provide me any piece of evidence that refutes this claim.

Just because Jesus uses Scripture at times does not mean that Scripture is the only authority for Christians. In fact, Jesus never commanded any of His apostles to write anything down, and only five of the original apostles chose to write. Does this mean the other apostles were less obedient, or have less to say about Jesus? I don’t think so. Further, when Jesus was tempted in {Matt. 4:1-11}, He was not giving a definitive teaching on the formal sufficiency of Scripture. He was resisting temptation. The fact that the devil incorrectly interprets{ Psalm 91:11-12} in his efforts to tempt Jesus demonstrate that we need a properly appointed authority to interpret the Scriptures for us.

Do not assert things you cannot prove.
I and others have given you long lists of doctrinal errors that you have made no attempt to prove correct by scripture. Heresy remains heresy.
Don't assert things to be true when you can't demonstrate them to be true.
Go back and answer my posts, where those doctrines are posted and prove they are true. If you keep making mindless statements like this--without any documentation or proof that RCC doctrine is Biblical I will just delete the post.

This board is for debate not for RCC advertising. That is what you are doing now. You are simply posting false propaganda without engaging in debate. It won't stand.

 

[DHK]

Concerning salvation evangelical churches are united.
Concerning salvation the RCC is lost. They don't know what it is.
Concerning other doctrines the RCC believes doctrines that are: extra-biblical, unbiblical, and even anti-biblical.
Many of them have already been listed for you. You go directly against the Ten Commandments.

Idolatry (worship of Mary and other saints)
necromancy (praying to the dead)
--In the OT these sins were punishable by death.
All of the many sins or doctrines related to Mary
--her birth--immaculate conception: heresy.
--her continual virginity: her children are mentioned in the Bible.
--her assumption into heaven--no biblical or historical basis. It only became accepted as a doctrine in the RCC in 1950. (the changing facade of the RCC)
--her position in heaven: redemptrix, intercessor, (taking the place of Christ)

Purgatory
mortal, venial sins, etc. There is no division of sins.
confession of sins to a priest. Only Christ can forgive sins.
Baptismal regeneration.
transubstantiation.
"the sacrifice of the mass" an abomination before God.
"last rites" It won't do any good at that point in one's life.
celibacy of the priesthood. According to 1Tim.4:1-5, it is a doctrine of demons.
indulgences

There are many more. Those are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
No evangelical church believes in such a laundry list of so many heretical anti-biblical doctrines that in no way can be defended by the Scriptures.

When you see differences here on the board, or in evangelical churches at least they are "biblical" differences. For example, both Calvinism and Arminianism have a biblical foundation to them which both sides defend. Your doctrines are founded on Tradition, the imagination of men, and superstition. Many of them originate in paganism have no connection to Christianity at all.
That is why the RCC is closer to a cult rather than actual Christianity.

Answer this post Lakeside.
It is posts like this you avoid.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Church of rome denies the Gospel, and dives another false one!