Purgatory

[Cathode]

And since people couldn’t read and mass was held in the dead language of Latin, which even many priests couldn’t understand, the corrupt RCC replaced the truth of scripture with their many false doctrines.

No, this is ridiculous. You couldn’t become a priest without knowing your Latin, Latin was the ordinary language of the Church, still is.
Being a dead language was actually beneficial, because words don’t change their meaning over time as with living languages.

The People knew Ecclesiastical Latin because of its constant use in Mass and the priests catechising them generationally.
My own parents grew up understanding the Mass in Latin from early childhood, I understand the Latin Mass.
The priests preached the Gospels in the vernacular languages anyway, and homilies were always in the vernacular languages explaining the Scriptures with singular interpretation handed down from the Apostles.

The real corruption occurred when Luther suggested each ploughboy and his dog should subjugate scripture to his opinions and formulate his own doctrines from them.

The twisting of scripture has not ended among them since they are all self appointed Popes.
Yes a priesthood of all believers, but not a Popehood of all believers as we see among Bible aloners.
The lawlessness of each man subjugating The Holy Word of God to his snot nosed subjective opinion, creating his own doctrines of men is not the truth of Scripture.

The corruption and falsehoods in Bible alone Protestantism are endless, every wind of doctrine can be obtained from them.

I say I am Catholic people know exactly what I believe.

People say they are “ Bible alone “ I don’t know what the hell they believe, I’ve heard countless crazy interpretations and doctrines, and I know I’m far from hearing them all.

 

[Cathode]

No. There are very few "Bible aloners".

Few people follow the doctrines and interpretations of the father of the Bible alone idea.
Luther would likely have burned you at the stake.

Every Bible aloner says “there are very few Bible aloners”. There seems to be an elitism among them all, each looking down upon the other. I’ve seen it, not just in outward gesture but spiritually.
Each claiming superior knowledge and understanding over the others, each congratulating themselves that their opinions of scripture are so aligned with the truth.
Amazing. Amazing how their opinions could feel so truthy.

 

[JonC]

Few people follow the doctrines and interpretations of the father of the Bible alone idea.
Luther would likely have burned you at the stake.

Every Bible aloner says “there are very few Bible aloners”. There seems to be an elitism among them all, each looking down upon the other. I’ve seen it, not just in outward gesture but spiritually.
Each claiming superior knowledge and understanding over the others, each congratulating themselves that their opinions of scripture are so aligned with the truth.
Amazing. Amazing how their opinions could feel so truthy.

Luther probably would have, if the Catholics didn't catch me first.

He and Calvin had too much Catholic in them (they believed in compelled conversions and a marriage of secular government to the church).

While there is, of course, one correct interpretation Scripture does not insist on one interpretation. Instead Scrioture itself addresses Chriatians congregations holding different interpretations and practices. This is different from simply adding to God's Word doctrines that are not present.

 

[Cathode]

Luther probably would have, if the Catholics didn't catch me first.

He and Calvin had too much Catholic in them (they believed in compelled conversions and a marriage of secular government to the church).

Luther condemned Ulrich Zwingli because Zwingli was the first deny Baptism and the Eucharist calling them merely symbolic.
These were central tenets and universal constants of Christianity from the beginning.
But this is the devolution that was caused by the new revolutionary heresy of scripture alone that Luther invented.
Zwingli thought that he was fully justified in his doctrines and denials from the Scriptures.
Each man was now arbiter of Truth from his own opinions of scripture, each founding his own church on his opinions of scripture.
This is Lawlessness we do not see in the Church Scripture talks about.

While there is, of course, one correct interpretation Scripture does not insist on one interpretation. Instead Scrioture itself addresses Chriatians congregations holding different interpretations and practices. This is different from simply adding to God's Word doctrines that are not present.

No, Paul states very clearly for people to hold to the traditions taught by them, whether by word of mouth or letter.

Not interpret the writings alone for yourselves and come up with your own doctrines.

Peter explicately warns against this.

“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.”

Protestantism does exactly what scripture condemns in subjecting scripture to each man’s own opinions. It doesn’t hold to the Oral and Written traditions handed down.

Nowhere in scripture does the church behave like Bible alone Protestantism. Even though churches were geographically separated, they maintained the same Apostolic Faith handed on to them by word of mouth and letter.

 

[JonC]

Luther condemned Ulrich Zwingli because Zwingli was the first deny Baptism and the Eucharist calling them merely symbolic.
These were central tenets and universal constants of Christianity from the beginning.
But this is the devolution that was caused by the new revolutionary heresy of scripture alone that Luther invented.
Zwingli thought that he was fully justified in his doctrines and denials from the Scriptures.
Each man was now arbiter of Truth from his own opinions of scripture, each founding his own church on his opinions of scripture.
This is Lawlessness we do not see in the Church Scripture talks about
No, Paul states very clearly for people to hold to the traditions taught by them, whether by word of mouth or letter.

Not interpret the writings alone for yourselves and come up with your own doctrines.

Peter explicately warns against this.

“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.”

Protestantism does exactly what scripture condemns in subjecting scripture to each man’s own opinions. It doesn’t hold to the Oral and Written traditions handed down.

Nowhere in scripture does the church behave like Bible alone Protestantism. Even though churches were geographically separated, they maintained the same Apostolic Faith handed on to them by word of mouth and letter.

I think you misunderstood my post. There are doctrines that are essential (the gospel) and this is where the RCC becomes "anti-christ" and demonic. But there are other issues which are matters of interpretation. It is to the latter that Scripture allows variance in interpretation, commanding us not to judge others congregationd because Christ "will make them stand".

I know Luther and Calvin denied biblical baptism. Zwingli initially sided with Scripture but ultimately returned to Catholic baptism. They were too indoctrinated in Roman Catholic paganism and did not - as the non-Catholics during the Reformation period stated - go far enough from the Catholic Church in their desire for reform.

Individual Christians should not come up with their own interpretations. I agree. But at the same time they should not blindly follow doctrines of men. You are the only one speaking about people following personal interpretation. It is a strawman argument.

Now I must follow my own suggestion and stop casting pearls before swine.

My last advice to you is to consider mire carefullu exactly who it is you will follow. Catholicism is so shallow a faith and the path you are on misses the spiritual depth of true life. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy


Peace to you, @Cathode .

 

[Cathode]

I think you misunderstood my post. There are doctrines that are essential (the gospel) and this is where the RCC becomes "anti-christ" and demonic. But there are other issues which are matters of interpretation. It is to the latter that Scripture allows variance in interpretation, commanding us not to judge others congregationd because Christ "will make them stand".

There is no final arbiter in Bible alonism to determine and interpret essential doctrine. Essential doctrine is just matter of opinion, that is building your house on sand.
Scripture doesn’t allow variance in interpretation, Bible aloners do.
The gates of Hell prevail against protestant churches all the time, unsettled on essentials, church splits and rancorous divisions breaking communion with the other.
Baptist’s divided against each other, Presbyterians divided against each other, Lutherans divided against each other.
All these Church splits indicate they are divided on something they each consider “essential “.

I know Luther and Calvin denied biblical baptism. Zwingli initially sided with Scripture but ultimately returned to Catholic baptism. They were too indoctrinated in Roman Catholic paganism and did not - as the non-Catholics during the Reformation period stated - go far enough from the Catholic Church in their desire for reform.

Individual Christians should not come up with their own interpretations. I agree. But at the same time they should not blindly follow doctrines of men. You are the only one speaking about people following personal interpretation. It is a strawman argument.

No, behind every non Catholic doctrine in Bible alonism, you will see a new human founded interpretation of scripture.
Starting with Luther’s innovations then a host of other interpretive innovators, all human founded traditions of men.
This is completely antithetical to the Church we read about in the scriptures.

Now I must follow my own suggestion and stop casting pearls before swine.

My suggestion is that the pot shouldn’t call the kettle swine.

 

[Cathode]

My last advice to you is to consider mire carefullu exactly who it is you will follow. Catholicism is so shallow a faith and the path you are on misses the spiritual depth of true life. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy

You like Shakespeare.

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”​

Private interpretation of scripture is the devil’s playground, starting with Luther, it has been the devil’s playground.

Examine the origin of your human founded interpretations of scripture, examine who you follow.

 

[JesusFan]

False.

Salvation is by Faith alone, so long as you have the right definition of Faith, Faith working through Love as Paul says.
Not the wrongful understanding of faith many protestants have.

Rome holds that one cannot be saved by grace alone, received thru faith alone, as she holds that a sinner must merit by cooperation with 7 sacramental gracing enough sanctification to merit now able to get saved, totally anathema to the Gospel message

 

[Mikoo]

Rome kept the bible from the laity for centuries, and even to ths very day will only allow them to read in thru the grid view of papacy and the teaching of Rome period

Just like the jehovah's witnesses and the mormons.

 

[Mikoo]

Luther condemned Ulrich Zwingli because Zwingli was the first deny Baptism and the Eucharist calling them merely symbolic.
These were central tenets and universal constants of Christianity from the beginning.
But this is the devolution that was caused by the new revolutionary heresy of scripture alone that Luther invented.
Zwingli thought that he was fully justified in his doctrines and denials from the Scriptures.
Each man was now arbiter of Truth from his own opinions of scripture, each founding his own church on his opinions of scripture.
This is Lawlessness we do not see in the Church Scripture talks about.



No, Paul states very clearly for people to hold to the traditions taught by them, whether by word of mouth or letter.

Not interpret the writings alone for yourselves and come up with your own doctrines.

Peter explicately warns against this.

“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.”

Protestantism does exactly what scripture condemns in subjecting scripture to each man’s own opinions. It doesn’t hold to the Oral and Written traditions handed down.

Nowhere in scripture does the church behave like Bible alone Protestantism. Even though churches were geographically separated, they maintained the same Apostolic Faith handed on to them by word of mouth and letter.

Perfect description of the leadership of the rc denomination and their followers!
Just like the mormons and the JWs.

 

[JesusFan]

Just like the jehovah's witnesses and the mormons.

Well, all 3 of them claim to the true church, to have the only true doctrines and teachings

 

[JesusFan]

Perfect description of the leadership of the rc denomination and their followers!
Just like the mormons and the JWs.

all claim that their leaders have the perfect understanding of the bible, and all 3 elevate the doctrines an teachings of their leadership over those in bible

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is no final arbiter in Bible alonism to determine and interpret essential doctrine. Essential doctrine is just matter of opinion, that is building your house on sand.
Scripture doesn’t allow variance in interpretation, Bible aloners do.
The gates of Hell prevail against protestant churches all the time, unsettled on essentials, church splits and rancorous divisions breaking communion with the other.
Baptist’s divided against each other, Presbyterians divided against each other, Lutherans divided against each other.
All these Church splits indicate they are divided on something they each consider “essential “.



No, behind every non Catholic doctrine in Bible alonism, you will see a new human founded interpretation of scripture.
Starting with Luther’s innovations then a host of other interpretive innovators, all human founded traditions of men.
This is completely antithetical to the Church we read about in the scriptures.



My suggestion is that the pot shouldn’t call the kettle swine.

I like that suggestion…however, nothing nothing of that activity is done on BB,..
Right LOL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Luther probably would have, if the Catholics didn't catch me first.

He and Calvin had too much Catholic in them (they believed in compelled conversions and a marriage of secular government to the church).

While there is, of course, one correct interpretation Scripture does not insist on one interpretation. Instead Scrioture itself addresses Chriatians congregations holding different interpretations and practices. This is different from simply adding to God's Word doctrines that are not present.

Interesting….tell me more

 

[JonC]

Interesting….tell me more

Catholicism came into being when the Roman Empire "Christianized" the Empire. This remained the method Catholics used for most of its existence (convert or die). Problem is this always results in exactly what it resulted in with the Catholic church (a blending of Christianity and paganism). Over a century genuine faith was replaced with Catholic faith and the Catholic Church itself became apostate to the Christian faith.

Luther saw a problem with justification and sought reform. Calvin saw a similar problem and joined this reform
But they were reforming the Roman Catholic doctrines they identified as error while accepting Catholic doctrine they missed as error. The Roman Catholic Church would later identify some problems and reform it's own doctrines.

Several Anabaptist groups had joined the Protestant movement but condemned the Reformers for not going far enough - not going back to God's Word and instead retaining much Catholic doctrine, albeit often in a reformed state. Instead of looking at Catholic heresy and abandoning it all together they sought to make the heresy more biblical.

To be fair, they were indoctrinated in Catholic doctrine and culture and probably unable to objectively examine their doctrine (often it takes an "outsider" to see many problems).

The Presbyterians remained "romish" (to borrow from earlier Baptists). Methodists carried this over when they left the Presbyterian Church.


Scripture speaks of condemning churches over interpretations that differ (commanding us not to do it, that this is judging the servant of Amother and Christ will make them stand). The Biblical churches were on common ground in regards to the gospel and caring for the poor. But there were differences in interpretation of Scripture, application of OT Scripture, worship and church practices/ culture. The church in Corinth was very different from the chur h in Jerusalem (hence God's command not to judge the servants of Another).

BUT there has to be that common ground where different people can worship the same God observing the same gospel. Catholic doctrine is truely pagan. The gospel is their, but it is obscured.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Catholicism came into being when the Roman Empire "Christianized" the Empire. This remained the method Catholics used for most of its existence (convert or die). Problem is this always results in exactly what it resulted in with the Catholic church (a blending of Christianity and paganism). Over a century genuine faith was replaced with Catholic faith and the Catholic Church itself became apostate to the Christian faith.

Luther saw a problem with justification and sought reform. Calvin saw a similar problem and joined this reform
But they were reforming the Roman Catholic doctrines they identified as error while accepting Catholic doctrine they missed as error. The Roman Catholic Church would later identify some problems and reform it's own doctrines.

Several Anabaptist groups had joined the Protestant movement but condemned the Reformers for not going far enough - not going back to God's Word and instead retaining much Catholic doctrine, albeit often in a reformed state. Instead of looking at Catholic heresy and abandoning it all together they sought to make the heresy more biblical.

To be fair, they were indoctrinated in Catholic doctrine and culture and probably unable to objectively examine their doctrine (often it takes an "outsider" to see many problems).

The Presbyterians remained "romish" (to borrow from earlier Baptists). Methodists carried this over when they left the Presbyterian Church.


Scripture speaks of condemning churches over interpretations that differ (commanding us not to do it, that this is judging the servant of Amother and Christ will make them stand). The Biblical churches were on common ground in regards to the gospel and caring for the poor. But there were differences in interpretation of Scripture, application of OT Scripture, worship and church practices/ culture. The church in Corinth was very different from the chur h in Jerusalem (hence God's command not to judge the servants of Another).

BUT there has to be that common ground where different people can worship the same God observing the same gospel. Catholic doctrine is truely pagan. The gospel is their, but it is obscured.

I see you have been studying Catholicism….of course the stalwart Catholics will disagree with your assessment but I agree….it is pagan

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Rome holds that one cannot be saved by grace alone, received thru faith alone, as she holds that a sinner must merit by cooperation with 7 sacramental gracing enough sanctification to merit now able to get saved, totally anathema to the Gospel message

True
Catholicism came into being when the Roman Empire "Christianized" the Empire. This remained the method Catholics used for most of its existence (convert or die). Problem is this always results in exactly what it resulted in with the Catholic church (a blending of Christianity and paganism). Over a century genuine faith was replaced with Catholic faith and the Catholic Church itself became apostate to the Christian faith.

Luther saw a problem with justification and sought reform. Calvin saw a similar problem and joined this reform
But they were reforming the Roman Catholic doctrines they identified as error while accepting Catholic doctrine they missed as error. The Roman Catholic Church would later identify some problems and reform it's own doctrines.

Several Anabaptist groups had joined the Protestant movement but condemned the Reformers for not going far enough - not going back to God's Word and instead retaining much Catholic doctrine, albeit often in a reformed state. Instead of looking at Catholic heresy and abandoning it all together they sought to make the heresy more biblical.

To be fair, they were indoctrinated in Catholic doctrine and culture and probably unable to objectively examine their doctrine (often it takes an "outsider" to see many problems).

The Presbyterians remained "romish" (to borrow from earlier Baptists). Methodists carried this over when they left the Presbyterian Church.


Scripture speaks of condemning churches over interpretations that differ (commanding us not to do it, that this is judging the servant of Amother and Christ will make them stand). The Biblical churches were on common ground in regards to the gospel and caring for the poor. But there were differences in interpretation of Scripture, application of OT Scripture, worship and church practices/ culture. The church in Corinth was very different from the chur h in Jerusalem (hence God's command not to judge the servants of Another).

BUT there has to be that common ground where different people can worship the same God observing the same gospel. Catholic doctrine is truely pagan. The gospel is their, but it is obscured.

I see you have been studying Catholicism….of course the stalwart Catholics will disagree with your assessment but I agree….it is pagan

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Catholicism came into being when the Roman Empire "Christianized" the Empire. This remained the method Catholics used for most of its existence (convert or die). Problem is this always results in exactly what it resulted in with the Catholic church (a blending of Christianity and paganism). Over a century genuine faith was replaced with Catholic faith and the Catholic Church itself became apostate to the Christian faith.

Luther saw a problem with justification and sought reform. Calvin saw a similar problem and joined this reform
But they were reforming the Roman Catholic doctrines they identified as error while accepting Catholic doctrine they missed as error. The Roman Catholic Church would later identify some problems and reform it's own doctrines.

Several Anabaptist groups had joined the Protestant movement but condemned the Reformers for not going far enough - not going back to God's Word and instead retaining much Catholic doctrine, albeit often in a reformed state. Instead of looking at Catholic heresy and abandoning it all together they sought to make the heresy more biblical.

To be fair, they were indoctrinated in Catholic doctrine and culture and probably unable to objectively examine their doctrine (often it takes an "outsider" to see many problems).

The Presbyterians remained "romish" (to borrow from earlier Baptists). Methodists carried this over when they left the Presbyterian Church.


Scripture speaks of condemning churches over interpretations that differ (commanding us not to do it, that this is judging the servant of Amother and Christ will make them stand). The Biblical churches were on common ground in regards to the gospel and caring for the poor. But there were differences in interpretation of Scripture, application of OT Scripture, worship and church practices/ culture. The church in Corinth was very different from the chur h in Jerusalem (hence God's command not to judge the servants of Another).

BUT there has to be that common ground where different people can worship the same God observing the same gospel. Catholic doctrine is truely pagan. The gospel is there, but it is obscured.

Didn’t you mean to say ,” when the Methodists left the Anglican Church?” Or am I missing some key information about the Methodists….both George Whitfield and the entire Westley family were from the Anglican communion.

 

[JonC]

Didn’t you mean to say ,” when the Methodists left the Anglican Church?” Or am I missing some key information about the Methodists….both George Whitfield and the entire Westley family were from the Anglican communion.

Yes. Had the Presbyterians on my mind I guess. Fingers working faster than brain.

 

[canadyjd]

all claim that their leaders have the perfect understanding of the bible, and all 3 elevate the doctrines an teachings of their leadership over those in bible

Exactly! That is why Christians have always accepted the known works of scripture (by the end of the first century) to compare all the false doctrine.

All of these groups included known scripture, but added other books to support the false doctrine (or in the case of the JV, simply changed scripture to fit their errors)

Strange, or not really, that RCC supporters claim others are being led by Satan when they have embraced the pagan doctrines of Satan and attempted to “Christinize” them.

Not the least of which is the pope claiming to speak for God. We know from scripture that Satan lifts himself up to usurp, if possible, the authority of God. What better example of satanic influence to have a man claiming to speak for God and changing the very words of God while he does does it.

No wonder the early baptists referred to the pope as THE anti-Christ.

Peace to you