Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
Dear Elin,
OK - the Protestant indicates he/she has the pure bible-based faith, Incorrupt by man and therefore pleasing to God. Additionally, the Protestant maintains the RCC is condemned without the Protestant "pure" bible-based views.
It is clear, kind friend, that the Protestant view is based on interpretations by fallible man. Man is not infallible (perfect, free form error). These are opinions, not scripture. These opinions are then used to issue condemnation to the RCC as though one had such authority to condemn.
I have submitted several examples of man-made phrases and concepts utilized by Protestants not found in the bible. Age of accountability and scripture alone are not phrases found in the bible. They are bible interpretations. Further, some folks claim that because the Holy Spirit dwells within them, or because they pray, their interpretations are from God and infallible.
Friend, these are the Protestant claims I submit to you is false.
OK - the Protestant indicates he/she has the pure bible-based faith, Incorrupt by man and therefore pleasing to God. Additionally, the Protestant maintains the RCC is condemned without the Protestant "pure" bible-based views.
It is clear, kind friend, that the Protestant view is based on interpretations by fallible man. Man is not infallible (perfect, free form error). These are opinions, not scripture. These opinions are then used to issue condemnation to the RCC as though one had such authority to condemn.
I have submitted several examples of man-made phrases and concepts utilized by Protestants not found in the bible. Age of accountability and scripture alone are not phrases found in the bible. They are bible interpretations. Further, some folks claim that because the Holy Spirit dwells within them, or because they pray, their interpretations are from God and infallible.
Friend, these are the Protestant claims I submit to you is false.
Last edited:
You have not demonstrated where "Sola Scriptura" is an erroneous interpretation of the Scripture presented.
2 Thessaolonians 2:
[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and
hold the traditions which you have learned,
whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
your interpretation of these verses is simply hilarious. they
have nothing to do with the teachings of a church founded 700 years after Christ.
now what is this referring to?
It refers to Paul's teaching being passed on accurately in his own time while he was still alive and able to vet them, and especially to what he wrote in his letters. It has NOTHING to say about words that were passed on which were not based on his teaching. The early fathers whose genuine writings we have were incapable of passing on Paul's words because thy did not understand them. You only have to read Clement of Rome's letter to see that.
You Roman Catholics. . .assume that any mention of what is passed on applies to you. But your traditions were not passed on by Paul. They are a mishmash of later heresies.
have nothing to do with the teachings of a church founded 700 years after Christ.
now what is this referring to?
It refers to Paul's teaching being passed on accurately in his own time while he was still alive and able to vet them, and especially to what he wrote in his letters. It has NOTHING to say about words that were passed on which were not based on his teaching. The early fathers whose genuine writings we have were incapable of passing on Paul's words because thy did not understand them. You only have to read Clement of Rome's letter to see that.
You Roman Catholics. . .assume that any mention of what is passed on applies to you. But your traditions were not passed on by Paul. They are a mishmash of later heresies.
2 Thessalonians 3:
[6] And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not
according to the tradition which they have received of us.
[6] And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not
according to the tradition which they have received of us.
'the tradition which you have received FROM US'. And how do
we know that tradition.
ONLY FROM PAUL's LETTERS. It is miles away from the spurious traditions claimed by the Roman Catholic church which are all fantasies.
We also need to settle this issue of what principle is the foundation for this discussion.
Elin said:
mattp0625 said:
i await for the locations requested. Not interpretations- the actual words out of the bible
Your position is hypocritical if you believe in
the "Trinity," which is also not "the actual words out of the Bible."
Last edited:
M
Elin,
I'm not sure I see a new message with that post. All I am saying is man's fallible opinions are not a good basis from which to issue condemnations. In fact, it's not good idea for any man to issue condemnations as only Christ has that authority.
The members of the RCC on this board, you'll notice, are not issuing condemnations.
The best a Protestant can do is agree that all man is fallible, and therefore both Protestants and Catholics have fallible interpretations.
Correct, you cannot find Trinity in the bible. The RCC accepts certain holy traditions, not explicitly stated in the bible, but passed on by word of mouth by the early church.
Such items not stated in the bible include marriage liturgy, the concept of Trinity, and the fact that the gospels were written (under divine influence) by who we say they were (Matthew Mark Luke John).
The RCC says you need the Word, faith, good works, holy traditions, love, forgiveness, and sacraments as a bonus.
Elin, the main point, to summarize, is that issuing condemnation against the RCC based on man-made opinions of Protestants cannot hold water.
I'm not sure I see a new message with that post. All I am saying is man's fallible opinions are not a good basis from which to issue condemnations. In fact, it's not good idea for any man to issue condemnations as only Christ has that authority.
The members of the RCC on this board, you'll notice, are not issuing condemnations.
The best a Protestant can do is agree that all man is fallible, and therefore both Protestants and Catholics have fallible interpretations.
Correct, you cannot find Trinity in the bible. The RCC accepts certain holy traditions, not explicitly stated in the bible, but passed on by word of mouth by the early church.
Such items not stated in the bible include marriage liturgy, the concept of Trinity, and the fact that the gospels were written (under divine influence) by who we say they were (Matthew Mark Luke John).
The RCC says you need the Word, faith, good works, holy traditions, love, forgiveness, and sacraments as a bonus.
Elin, the main point, to summarize, is that issuing condemnation against the RCC based on man-made opinions of Protestants cannot hold water.
M
That is not what Sola Scriptura means.
We have noted many items, such as Trinity, alter calls, age of accountability that shows the Protestant does not rely on the bible alone but on interpretation which are fallible opinions
We have further seen that the Protestant condemns others for not having this "pure" scripture as a basis. Another way of saying condemned is not saved. I took it to the next step of being saved as has been presented here many times.
mattp0625 said:
You left out "Trinity" and "sovereignty of God".
List of Man-Made Terms and Concepts Utilized by Protestants:
1) Age of Accountability-->a Catholic concept (age of reason)
2) Total Depravity of Man-->see Ro 8:7-8
3) Double Predestination-->can't have one without the other
4) Personal Lord and Saviour-->see 2Pe 1:11, 2:20, 3:18
5) Ask Jesus into your Heart-->See Rev 3:20, if not your heart, where do he and faith enter? (Ac 16:14; Ro 10:9-10; Eph 1:18, 5:19
6) The Rapture-->see the Latin Vulgate, 1Th 4:17 (raptus)
7) Invisible Church-->only the born again are the body of Christ, the church, do you know who they are with certainty so that the church is visible to you?
8) Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head-->from Catholic practice
9) “Personal Relationship with Christ"-->see "sonship"
10) Enthroning the Bible in your Heart-->see Ps 19;7-11, 119:169, 171-172, 11, 24, 97-100, 102-103, 147-148
(11) “Covered with the righteousness of Christ"-->see Is 61:10 with Ro 5:17, 19b
(12) Imputed righteousness-->see Ro 5:17, 19b
(13) Altar Call-->"sitting in a pew" is also not in the Bible
(14) Dedication; Rededication-->"repentance," see 2Co 2:6-10
(15) “Giving your Life to the Lord"-->see Mk 10:21
(16) Inerrancy-->see 2Tim 3:16
(17) Eternal Security-->see Php 1:6; Heb 10:14; Ro 8:38; 1Th 5:24; Heb 6:16-20; 1Pe 1:3-5; 2Pe 1:10
(18) “Once saved, always saved"--see "eternal security"
(19) Faith alone-->saved by grace alone, not by works, through faith (Eph 2:8-9)
(20) Sola Scriptura-->see 2Tim 3:16 "perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
(21) Devotions-->from Catholic practice
(22) Wedding rings-->a Catholic practice
You are uninformed.
Pony up. . .or your assertion that these interpretation are non-Biblical is without merit.
List of Man-Made Terms and Concepts Utilized by Protestants:
1) Age of Accountability-->a Catholic concept (age of reason)
2) Total Depravity of Man-->see Ro 8:7-8
3) Double Predestination-->can't have one without the other
4) Personal Lord and Saviour-->see 2Pe 1:11, 2:20, 3:18
5) Ask Jesus into your Heart-->See Rev 3:20, if not your heart, where do he and faith enter? (Ac 16:14; Ro 10:9-10; Eph 1:18, 5:19
6) The Rapture-->see the Latin Vulgate, 1Th 4:17 (raptus)
7) Invisible Church-->only the born again are the body of Christ, the church, do you know who they are with certainty so that the church is visible to you?
8) Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head-->from Catholic practice
9) “Personal Relationship with Christ"-->see "sonship"
10) Enthroning the Bible in your Heart-->see Ps 19;7-11, 119:169, 171-172, 11, 24, 97-100, 102-103, 147-148
(11) “Covered with the righteousness of Christ"-->see Is 61:10 with Ro 5:17, 19b
(12) Imputed righteousness-->see Ro 5:17, 19b
(13) Altar Call-->"sitting in a pew" is also not in the Bible
(14) Dedication; Rededication-->"repentance," see 2Co 2:6-10
(15) “Giving your Life to the Lord"-->see Mk 10:21
(16) Inerrancy-->see 2Tim 3:16
(17) Eternal Security-->see Php 1:6; Heb 10:14; Ro 8:38; 1Th 5:24; Heb 6:16-20; 1Pe 1:3-5; 2Pe 1:10
(18) “Once saved, always saved"--see "eternal security"
(19) Faith alone-->saved by grace alone, not by works, through faith (Eph 2:8-9)
(20) Sola Scriptura-->see 2Tim 3:16 "perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
(21) Devotions-->from Catholic practice
(22) Wedding rings-->a Catholic practice
You are uninformed.
Pony up. . .or your assertion that these interpretation are non-Biblical is without merit.
That concept is from the Catholic Church's "age of reason," not from the Bible.
It is the Catholic Church which uses concepts found nowhere in Scripture.
Score: 1-0 (#1).
You have not demonstrated where "Sola Scriptura" is an erroneous interpretation of the Scripture presented.
OK - the Protestant indicates he/she has the pure bible-based faith, Incorrupt by man and therefore pleasing to God. Additionally, the Protestant maintains the RCC is condemned without the Protestant "pure" bible-based views.
It is clear, kind friend, that the Protestant view is based on interpretations by fallible man. Man is not infallible (perfect, free form error). These are opinions, not scripture. These opinions are then used to issue condemnation to the RCC as though one had such authority to condemn.
I have submitted several examples of man-made phrases and concepts utilized by Protestants not found in the bible. Age of accountability and scripture alone are not phrases found in the bible. They are bible interpretations.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
Last edited:
I was paraphrasing, Elin. I know you believe your faith is based on "pure" scripture from the bible alone.
We have noted many items, such as Trinity, alter calls, age of accountability that shows the Protestant does not rely on the bible alone but on interpretation which are fallible opinions
We have further seen that
the Protestant condemns others for not having this "pure" scripture as a basis. Another way of saying condemned is not saved. I took it to the next step of being saved as has been presented here many times.
We have noted many items, such as Trinity, alter calls, age of accountability that shows the Protestant does not rely on the bible alone but on interpretation which are fallible opinions
We have further seen that
the Protestant condemns others for not having this "pure" scripture as a basis. Another way of saying condemned is not saved. I took it to the next step of being saved as has been presented here many times.
That is not the point at issue in our discussion.
Address our discussion.
M
Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
Elin said:
Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
I never claimed Sola Scriptura for the RCC. Read again, friend
And that is the point of our discussion.
Address our discussion.
Nor do you know what Sola Scriptura is about.
It has nothing to do with non-Biblical phrases.
It states the authority for God's truth.
Elin said:
OK. . .but you claimed the phrases you listed were non-Biblical.
And that is the point of our discussion.
Address our discussion.
Nor do you know what Sola Scriptura is about.
It has nothing to do with non-Biblical phrases.
It states the authority for God's truth.
And that is the point of our discussion.
Address our discussion.
Nor do you know what Sola Scriptura is about.
It has nothing to do with non-Biblical phrases.
It states the authority for God's truth.
directly from God?
"Scripture only" is the authority for God's truth.
If it's not in Scripture, we have no basis for believing it.
And yes, all Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16). . .it comes from God.
Last edited:
Circular argument. Scripture alone - Then using personal interpretations and calling it scripture!! Can't have it both ways, friend.
The Scriptures are the authority for truth, personal interpretations are not.
Address our discussion.
M
It is what I say to people who believe the foolish doctrine of your church, and I do it on the authority of Christ. To those who twisted His word with man made traditions, He said, 'You fools and blind.' You do the same. Thus I follow in His steps.
You serve nobodies cause but your own. Jesus can call others fool, but you cannot.
As proven on my post about the eucharistic miracles, you do not research anything welll enough to have a view, let alone express it in such forthright manner.
Cool it. Blessed are the meek.