Catholic Heresy (for the record)

  • 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

mattp0625

Guest
Yea, that is the best arguement a Protestant can make.

in that scenario, I'll take the lineage to the Apostles versus Martin Luther.
 

SAVAS

Senior Member
Aug 18, 2013
154
2
16
Are you speaking of accepting Only Scripture as one's authority for faith and doctrine?

You're not Catholic, so are you Protestant, or do you believe the doctrines of the Catholic church, such as works by grace save?
I'm Eastern Orthodox. Antiochian
 

SAVAS

Senior Member
Aug 18, 2013
154
2
16
Good advice for yourself as well.

The "church" has only one meaning in the NT--the body of Christ, not a "magisterium."

The pillar of truth is the body of Christ wherein dwells the Holy Spirit with the grace and truth of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:17).


They agree on the essentials.

Paul acknowledged and did not condemn, different understandings in his own day (Php 3:15; Eph 1:17).
A lot of it is related to Christian maturity and immaturity.
Seems that the only essential they would agree on is Sola itself as a doctrine.

If you want to talk Christian maturity, Id take 2000 years of practice rather than 500.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
But that of course is the problem, you use your own definition of infallibility, not the RCC one,
Pretty much what mattp0625 does with Sola Scriptura.

then use it to attack RCC

It is called a straw man
argument, it is also a logical falacy.
Yep. . .the same one of mattp0625.

Perhaps you could show him his logical fallacy.

EVERY Christian believes in infallibility in its proper context, they must do to be Christians, or to believe that scripture is inspired.

That some people can act inerrantly in doctrinal matters, that is God acting through people, which is for example the only way scripture can be inerrant and inspired, for the act of authorship of scripture to be infallible, free from error.
The apostles had a promise from Jesus, which no one else has--to recall and
understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

While the writers of Scripture wrote inerrantly, no one acts inerrantly, for no one is sinless.

It is a mark of an act under inspiration not of a person, and it does not make that person sin free or inerrant in any other way.

So the only question is
who has acted or acts infallibly,
not whether infallibility exists.
The only infallibility, by the promise of Jesus, is of the writings of the NT.
The pope has no such promise from Jesus regarding his actions.

The pope is only deemed infallible in limited matters of statement ofdoctrine which rarely has happened in 2 millenia. He also presides over councils, that for example declared the canon of scripture, so YOU rely on the authority of those catholic councils to believe that the New Testament is inspired. A simple thank you to the pope and councils will do.

But then the pope has scriptural authority to do so having been given the " keys of the kingdom" an unquestionable reference back to the authority of steward in a davidic kingdom, " what you bind on earth is bound in heaven"
I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction between Peter (petros, small rock) in Mt 16:19, and this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42; Eph 2:20-21; Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32;
1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.

It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e., the gospel, binding and loosing what has been bound and loosed in heaven, by the preaching of the gospel (Jn 3:18, 36).
 
Last edited:
M

mattp0625

Guest
Nothing to see here. No leader of the Apostles or Church of Christ. Nope nope. Straw man!


  • Acts 1: Peter decides that Judas should be replaced.
  • Acts 2: Peter speaks to the crowds at Pentecost and converts thousands.
  • Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.
  • Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes.
  • Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.
  • Acts 8: Peter rebukes Simon.
  • Acts 9: Saul's conversion; Peter raises the dead and heals the paralyzed.
  • Acts 10: Peter, at God's direct command, opens the door to the Gentiles.
  • Acts 11: The Judaizers came to Peter to complain.
  • Acts 12: Peter is arrested and saved by an angel.
  • Acts 15: Peter decides the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, and after he finishes speaking, "all the assembly kept silence."

  • Peter walked on water
  • Peter called for a replacement to Judas
  • Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem
  • Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus' flock
  • Jesus prayed specifically for Peter
  • Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost
  • Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles
  • Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah
  • Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
  • Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only
  • Paul comes to Peter to consult with him
  • Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles
  • Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira
  • Peter has his name changed to "Rock."
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Which is one of the reformationists problems,
they cannot agree between themselves what sola scriptura means,
It means what the Reformers who coined the phrase meant.

It means Only Scripture is the authority for faith, doctrine and godliness, not the Pope.

There are not differing meanings of Sola Scriptura just as there are not differing meanings of the body of Christ.
The true meanings of both are determined by their origins.

let alone find any scriptural or logical basis for it....
Nope. . .Scripture presents itself as the only (1Co 4:6) and sufficient (2Tim 3:16) authority for faith, doctrine and godliness.
 
Last edited:
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
Here is a Jesus image toaster you can make your own images




Says not to know Jesus after the flesh (I think that means by outward appearances) but that could be my protestant interpretation

2 Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we him
no more.

Afterall Jesus did say,

John 14:19
Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
and ye in me, and I in you.

Shows ye would see him...

Not Christ on toast,
not Christ in cement
but Christ in you.

It makes it difficult (if not near impossible) to grasp the mystery of Christ (in) you while staring at a big ol cement figure of a man (supposed to be him) after the image of the flesh (outside of) you, especially when he IS the image of the *INVISIBLE* God.

So if you are seeing him **after the flesh** in some form who exactly are you looking at?

How are you seeing both him and the Father (in) him when you see Jesus you see a cement figure?

As He (himself) in the flesh is the image of the **inivisible** God


John 14:8
Philip saith unto him,

Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him,

Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

If he is the image of the IVISIBLE God, then it speaks of knowing the Father through his expressed "person"
(His inward image) not outward.

Christ in you (manifest myself) to you

None of us have known him after flesh

But even to them which did (asking to ee the Father)

Jesus said,

he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou
then, Shew us the Father?

Pulling out some sketches is just not really getting it (and knowing him after the flesh) when he is not to be known that way. As he appeared to them in a different form also.

Mark 16:12
After that (he was risen) he appeared in another form unto two of them,
as they walked, and went into the country.

So we have another outward form of Jesus, you just never know what spin the artwork will take on?

Also we know that

Col 2:9
For in him (Jesus Christ)dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

And in the context of the Godhead (period)

Paul said...


Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

This time of ignorance

Acts 17:3 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

These are resisting that idea of repenting of that made with hands (which they profit from)

Acts 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia,
this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

Then here, looks the same, that which is made by hands

Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

I have to share this (dont laugh to hard but its tue of me) as a teenager I used to have a crush (sad I know) on Sly Stallone when Rocky come out. When someone pulled out that image (after the flesh) of Jesus that looks like Rocky (to me) and others see that same resemblance as well.

But heres the thing , I had to believe he had no beauty about him when we see him ( and I sort of laughed, and I thought yanno, Im in real trouble if I have to be looking at that picture of Jesus for too long).

See how weird this gets, that he looked like a picture of (my idol) after the flesh.





 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
I am still waiting for you to explain why you believe in the logical contradiction of sola scriptura? Where in the bible does it say it has to be there to be true?
just read 2 Tim 3.15-17 and use your intelligence. Difficult I know when you've been brainwashed.

Also why it is there are so many variations of protestantism, now authority was lost at the reformation, so most of them must be false doctrine since see my list - they are mutually exclusive!.
It is only you who thinks they are mutually exclusive, not us or God. They are secondary matters which do not affect the truth. It is only because you are so hidebound by the Roman Catholic church that you cannot see that true Christianity is spirit not legalism and ritual.
Why it is Jesus would allow his true church to vaporize for 1500 years, condemning all concerned
,

His true church did not vapourise, it continued underground, enduring the persecution of the Roman Catholic political hierarchy, just as the church continued underground in China and in Communist Russia.

Have you noted the parallel? Why did God, having established Israel, allow it to vapourise over 1000 years? Because He was preserving a true spiritual remnant for Himself? The same is true of church history. Like Israel the outward church grew idolatrous and disobedient and developed into a political and religious entity which was displeasing to God. In the case of bastardised Israel John and Jesus swept it clean. In the case of the bastardised Roman Catholic church the reformation swept it clean through the Holy Spirit

And even today the true remnant are only part of a larger whole. That is how God works, proving the fallacy of trusting the Roman Catholic church which is composed of modern Sadducees, Scribe and Pharisees...

then rematerialize just because a head strong priest decided to attack RCC, who later regretted his actions profoundly, which allowed such as you to make up their "own version"
You can see why I think Roman Catholicism has made you stupid? If you really think that Luther brought abut the reformation you are abundantly stupid. But of course you swallow the Roman Catholic line hook, line and sinker. The reformation in England had nothing to do with Luther. It was brought about by men like John Wycliff and William Tyndale who in spite of severe persecution (and finally being martyred) brought the word of God to England in their own language. Also Thomas Bilney. In the end it was the word of God that brought about the reformation in England, aided by godly men who under Elizabeth established the Anglican church with its catechism known as the 39 articles, and other godly men who established FREE churches. Luther had a big impact in Germany, but the reformation Europe wide was led by many godly men. It would all have happened without Luther.

Whatever you think of the RCC claim, your church does not have the longevity to claim it is the pillar of truth
History shows that 'truth' does not survive long when it is in the hands of men. That is why your church is the pillar of lies. That is why God put it in a book. Your church has survived from around 700 AD but it was corrupt when it commenced. Its longevity has been filled with bloodshed, immorality of Popes, persecution of spiritual Christians, corrupt practices. LOL you respected bishops so much that you appointed Archbishops at one year old. And they were probably the most doctrinally sound among you until they grew up.

WE ALL trace our line back to the Apostles. But it is only those who are in line with Apostolic teaching on salvation who are true Christians. The rest are like the Scribes and Pharisees, blind fools.

, since chances are it was invented less than 100 years ago, formed as a fracture from a fracture and destined to fracture!
At least it might then have a chance of being pure. But my church was founded in the days of the Apostles and has been kept pure by persecution !!!! That is one debt we owe Rome LOL
 
Last edited:
M

mattp0625

Guest
It means what the Reformers who coined the phrase meant.

It means Only Scripture is the authority for faith, doctrine and godliness, not the Pope.

There are not differing meanings of Sola Scriptura just as there are not differing meanings of the body of Christ.
The true meanings of both are determined by their origins.


Nope. . .Scripture presents itself as the only (1Co 4:6) and sufficient (2Tim 3:16) authority for faith, doctrine and godliness.
2 Tim 3- no words indicating: only, alone, or this and nothing else.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
You can find a thousand video testimonies on just one single site - , most of them ministers , pastors and theologians from every Protestant group, explaining the doctrines and scriptures that forced them to abandon Protestantism, and how studying history and church fathers brought them back to Rome. Many of them now priests. Watch the " journey home " from coming home network.

They all discovered as I did, that reformationist doctrines were a shallow synthetic fudge, on which none of the reformationists agree, proving
there is no universal truth in any of Protestantism, beyond the creeds we share anyway.
The essentials are the universal truths of Protestantism.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
2 Tim 3- no words indicating: only, alone, or this and nothing else.
But plenty emphasising their total efficiency. Intelligent people draw the right conclusion. Brainwashed people can't understand it.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
They agree on the essentials.
They certainly do not!

Perhaps you might do the courtesy of reading the list of massive and profound differences I present above,
As you should read the list which I presented of the essentials on which they agree.
 
M

mattp0625

Guest
Where did it say total? I'll add that to the list of words not there
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Seems that the only essential they would agree on is Sola itself as a doctrine.

If you want to talk Christian maturity, Id take 2000 years of practice rather than 500.
Christian maturity resides in the individual, just as all other human maturity.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
It means what the Reformers who coined the phrase meant.

It means Only Scripture is the authority for faith, doctrine and godliness, not the Pope.

There are not differing meanings of Sola Scriptura just as there are not differing meanings of the body of Christ.
The true meanings of both are determined by their origins.

Scripture presents itself as the only (1Co 4:6) and sufficient (2Tim 3:16) authority for faith, doctrine and godliness.
2 Tim 3- no words indicating: only, alone, or this and nothing else.
Read 'em again. . .
 
Last edited:

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
Nothing to see here. No leader of the Apostles or Church of Christ. Nope nope. Straw man!


  • Acts 1: Peter decides that Judas should be replaced.
  • Acts 2: Peter speaks to the crowds at Pentecost and converts thousands.
  • Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.
  • Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes.
  • Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.
  • Acts 8: Peter rebukes Simon.
  • Acts 9: Saul's conversion; Peter raises the dead and heals the paralyzed.
  • Acts 10: Peter, at God's direct command, opens the door to the Gentiles.
  • Acts 11: The Judaizers came to Peter to complain.
  • Acts 12: Peter is arrested and saved by an angel.
  • Acts 15: Peter decides the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, and after he finishes speaking, "all the assembly kept silence."

  • Peter walked on water
  • Peter called for a replacement to Judas
  • Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem
  • Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus' flock
  • Jesus prayed specifically for Peter
  • Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost
  • Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles
  • Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah
  • Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
  • Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only
  • Paul comes to Peter to consult with him
  • Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles
  • Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira
  • Peter has his name changed to "Rock."
The problem is Peter never in Rome, and not the first bishop in Rome.

www.vision.org/visionmedia/religion-and...peter-in-rome/5820.aspx

I give you one example how catholic lie.

One of the source to claim that Peter is martyr in Rome is Clement letter.

The fact is Clement never said Peter is in Rome at all. Basically Clement only said Peter and Paul and 12 other saints are suffered because of Jealousy.

The same victim of Jealousy, why interpreted as both martyred in Rome?

This bellow copy of Prof Michael d Goulder

Quote:
Clement had given seven Old Testament examples of people who had suffered because of jealousy. (Only one, Cain’s brother Abel, had actually died because of the jealousy.) Goulder then proceeded to show that each Old Testament example had a New Testament parallel in that each individual or group had suffered in a similar way because of jealousy. Among these later examples, Clement listed first “the greatest and most righteous pillars” of the church; they, like Abel, had “contended even unto death.” This description would certainly fit the apostle James. Peter, Clement said, had fled (just as Jacob had fled his jealous brother, Esau); and Paul (like Joseph in the Old Testament) had been put in bondage.
In other words, as Goulder read the epistle, Clement didn’t even address the issue of whether or not Peter or Paul were martyred. The letter simply identified them as having suffered from the jealousy of others. Clement’s purpose in giving these examples was merely to correct the Corinthians with regard to the internal problems that he saw arising from the jealousy and envy that had developed among them (1 Clement 3). Goulder considers that based on this clarification, Peter may have died in his bed in Jerusalem for all Clement tells us.
 

SAVAS

Senior Member
Aug 18, 2013
154
2
16
That may explain your lack of exposure to former Roman Catholics who are now Protestant.
I'm asking you to expose me. Introduce me to one. Let me hear his/her testimony. Or are you just going to measure my exposure?