Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[valiant]

When did Christ say: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will establish 10,000 denominations ? Or that the church is only a spiritual concept? Have a read of Eph 1:22-23. Jesus states the church is his body. He doesn't have 10,000 bodies. Eph 2:16 indicates He has one body

Your mistake is to try to split the church into 'denominations' and treat them as though those were as rigid a division as the Roman Catholic church. Denomination is only the name of a group of believers. They may approach worship in a slightly different way, just as the independent churches in the early church did, but believers in those denominations share essential truth with those in other denominations as they did in the early church. They look to the same Saviour. They worship the same LORD. I worship quite happily in evangelical Anglican churches, Baptist churches. Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Pentecostal churches, and so on, as long as they believe in the Triune God and salvation through saving faith in Jesus Christ.

The true church is made up of all who truly have saving faith in Jesus Christ no matter what denomination they belong to. That is the church which is founded on Peter's statement, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". The same was true of the early churches. The early churches also were independent and had a variety of secondary beliefs, and yet they were one in Christ. Christ's body is not 'a church'. It is actually not even the whole church on earth. It is Christ's resurrection body into which have been united all who have put their saving faith in Jesus Christ, whether in Heaven or on earth.

If you think that the Roman Catholic church is Christ's body I can only treat you as a joke.. LOL according to you, you are gorging on Christ's body every week like a bunch of cannibals. Are you then eating yourselves? How then can your church be that body? The idea is nonsensical.

The church of which Paul was speaking was the church of all true believers. In His day there was no hierarchical church. That took centuries to develop.

The church which is His body is not separate from Himself. It is united with HIS body. And He is its foundation. In one Spirit have we all been infused into one body (1 Cor 12.13), and that body IS CHRIST (1 Cor 12.12) and includes the head. All who truly put saving faith in Jesus Christ are united with His body by the drenching in the Spirit. It is this body which Paul is speaking of in Eph 2. It is visible on earth because we are visible. But it is not limited to a group selected by mere men. Your church has a limited Christ.

 

[Jeff_56]

What do you mean?
Are you being sarcastic? Trying to be funny?

we'll see soon enough.

Can someone please give me the method to practicing Sola please? I want to give this doctrine a shot. How do I do it? I'm Eastern Orthodox and this type of practice is very foreign to me. Thanks

you cannot practice --- it is a way of life, in yahshua hamashiach, trusting abba and relying on him for all things, for everything, trusting HIS WORD in yahshua, relying on HIS WORD in yahshua, not accepting any defamation of HIS WORD from anyone or any source, trusting abba yahweh elohim that HIS WORD is TRUTH no matter what men say and that HE HIMSELF REVEALS TRUTH to those who love him trust him and seek him ( in truth turning away from all sin and from all self and from all heresy and from everything and everyone that is not from him(which is most of what you know or even all of what you have ever known and trusted though they are unfaithful) )

i.e. not just trusting HIS WORD, and never trusting yourself as if you can find it out by study or any other means (as yahshua warned his own disciples that if they thought they could, then they had already FAILED; but if they trusted their father in heaven to accomplish all concerning salvation now and for eternity then it was already done) that's the most important difference in trusting in one's self or any man, and trusting yahweh abba elohim in yahshua ----- one leads to death(that's the one almost all men follow willingly and refuse to repent of) , one leads to life (and few find it).

This seems pretty straight forward. Ill give it a shot.

I have to note that your disregard for any type of tradition is erroneous. Especially when I'm putting Sola into practice and lets say come across 2 Thess 2:15. I know your in a heated debate about these things but your opinion on tradition isn't inline with Sacred Scripture. WAIT! Did I just perform Sola?! I read a passage, studied it, judged all I believed in light of what it said and came to my conclusion.

OK. My next question valiant, what if two disagree on Sacred Scripture after practicing Sola?

it is straightforward, as true and honest as anything /anyone can be..... but if you only 'try' it for a while to see if you like or approve of it, then you have already failed. that shows a trust in yourself/flesh/carnality and yahweh will not acceed to anyone's demands or tolerate a timid or doubtful soul that's not really depending on HIM and seeking HIM FOR LIFE in YAHSHUA. oh, HE'S VERY MERCIFUL and won't hurt someone already hurting extremely even, but without simple childlike faith it is impossible to please him and he sees completely all things and that includes right through anyone's deception or heresy or hypocrisy......

for instance, if you study something and come to your own conclusion, that's completely different from

TRUSTING YAHWEH and listening to HIM and RECEIVING FROM HIM TRUTH in YAHSHUA (which is required) ..... yahweh calls coming to your own conclusion the same as idolatry. remember peter was told
flesh and blood (study/man/man's ways) had not revealed....... that should be enough......

 

[mattp0625]

They are all one spirit? Among all the thousands of sects, please define the non-essential doctrines they don't need to have in common. Please use the bible as your source.

 

[valiant]

Sure thing- how do you know Mark wrote the book of Mark?

Because reliable witnesses (not a church) said so'

Or, how do you know the correct wedding liturgy?

A tradition of men.

Baptism liturgy?

A tradition of men.

How did people start exchanging wedding rings?

A tradition of men.

The bible?

The Old Testament on the word of Jesus Christ.

Paul's letters on the basis of Peter's words in 2 Pet 3.16 and on the basis of various reliable witnesses.

The Gospels on the basis of various witnesses (not of an authoritative church) who knew who wrote them. The same for Acts and the letters of Peter and John.

The whole because of their Apostolic connections and of their clear superiority over any other books written at the time, and their clear superiority over the ramblings of the early fathers.

We do not accept them because some church council told us to

 

[Galahad]

Hello mattp,
I've come to regard you as one of the more sincere ones among those not holding to the final authority of the Bible. I say that because you are still answering, discussing your beliefs here.

When did Christ say: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will establish 10,000 denominations ? Or that the church is only a spiritual concept? Have a read of Eph 1:22-23. Jesus states the church is his body. He doesn't have 10,000 bodies. Eph 2:16 indicates He has one body

When did Christ say:"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will establish 10,000 denominations ?"
Never. Never. Never.
Any falsehood in a statement automatically qualifies the entire statement as false.

Nor did Jesus ever say, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will establish popes and cardinals and archdioceses and the Vatican and the rosary and purgatory and Mariology and earthly priests and ash Wednesday and so on.

But what did Jesus say along your challenge or train of thought?

Matthew 10:34-37
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

In other words, truth divides.

The suggestion that the existence of denominations, regardless of the number of denominations, somehow proves the Bible is not the final authority for us today is actually contrary to what Jesus knew and taught about both truth and people. Basically, the two will not always agree. They just don't always see eye to eye on things.

Now then, if Jesus and His apostles can't teach the truth without there being division among people, then it stands to reason that no person or organization is capable of doing so. Just ask Judas Iscariot. Ask the scribes and Pharisees. Ask the church at Corinth. How about the Greek Orthodox church? Ask former Catholics.

The existence of denominations, division, does not evidence or prove any false doctrine to be right. My wrong doth not make you right.

 

[valiant]

They are all one spirit? Among all the thousands of sects, please define the non-essential doctrines they don't need to have in common. Please use the bible as your source.

I will rather define the essential doctrines as revealed in the New Testament.

The true Christian must believe in the Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture.

Must believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man as Scripture demonstrates.

Must believe that salvation is through the grace of God alone, without works (which are not its requirement but its fruit), received through putting saving faith in Jesus Christ Whose death and resurrection is the means and cause of their salvation.

Must be responsive to the Holy Spirit through His word.

Must have personally put their faith in Christ to be their Saviour.

All other doctrines are secondary, or alternatively may be false.

 

[mattp0625]

Galahad
i appreciate the kind discussion.
Agreed he never used the word pope
However, we still believe Peter to be the church leader. And the pope his successor. I provided a list of scriptures that demonstrate this, though denied by many here.
Also, please consider the question of establishing one church in light of my "non-essential doctrine" challenge
lastly, the RCC does not adopt sola scriptura

 

[mattp0625]

That's the valiant list of non essential doctrines, not the bible's. Such a list doesn't exist

 

[valiant]

Agreed he never used the word pope

But Jesus did. Pope mean Papa and Jesus told His followers to call NO MAN 'father' or 'Papa'.

However, we still believe Peter to be the church leader.

But not in accordance with any Scripture. It is just your opinion.

And the pope his successor.

There is NOTHING in Scripture about successors to any of the Apostles. They were unique and equal.
Church history shows that the early Roman church did not have a monarchical bishop until around 150 AD. In fact, of course, Clement of Alexandria was called Pope. But there was no thought that he was head of the church. The head of the church was Jesus Christ.

I provided a list of scriptures that demonstrate this,

That is simply untrue. You are always boasting about Scriptures you have provided, but either you do not provide them or you assume people will agree with you without explanation when no one but you sees the verse as meaning what you want us to think. Just give us the list now and show from them that they can only mean what you say.

though denied by many here.

because they do not say what you claim

Also, please consider the question of establishing one church in light of my "non-essential doctrine" challenge

There was one church from the beginning made up of thousands of independent churches under their own leadership. They had no overall authority but were guided by the Apostles as Paul's and Peter's letters make plain. Their head was Jesus Christ.

I realise you do not think God was capable of looking after His church, but He was. He certainly did not produce the bloodthirsty mess called the Roman Catholic church.

 

[mattp0625]

I'm seeing no answer indicating the list of non-essential doctrines for Protestant sects using the bible as your source

 

[valiant]

I'm seeing no answer indicating the list of non-essential doctrines for Protestant sects using the bible as your source

As usual you make comments intended to deceive. As I have pointed out all dogmas are non-essential apart from the ones I described.

I will rather define the essential doctrines as revealed in the New Testament.

The true Christian must believe in the Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture.

Must believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man as Scripture demonstrates.

Must believe that salvation is through the grace of God alone, without works (which are not its requirement but its fruit), received through putting saving faith in Jesus Christ Whose death and resurrection is the means and cause of their salvation.

Must be responsive to the Holy Spirit through His word.

Must have personally put their faith in Christ to be their Saviour.

All other doctrines are non-essential, or alternatively may be false.

It goes without saying that we pray to God in Jesus name and study the Holy Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation and to make us complete. And we look to the Scripture alone for the final truths.

 

[Galahad]

Sure thing- how do you know Mark wrote the book of Mark? Or, how do you know the correct wedding liturgy? Baptism liturgy? How did people start exchanging wedding rings? The bible?

mattp,

You do know that Savas stressed tradition. He referenced 2 Thessalonians 2:15. My question to him is, "What were those traditions that the Thessalonians were taught? And can you please supply reasons for your conclusion. This should not take too much of your time, seeing you have studied 2 Thessalonians 2.15."

Your questions are not an answer to my question.

Also, can you please be clear in your responses? I do not know what you mean by wedding and baptism liturgy.

And similarly, I don't see what connection they have with the traditions that the Thessalonians were taught. Since Savas brought up tradition in Thessalonians, he should state what those traditions were.

This is the problem. Someone makes a statement "Thessalonians followed tradition. That proves the Bible is not the final authority." That's it!

Or, history shows that "Joe O knew the apostle Paul. And Joe O wrote a letter to a church and in the letter Joe said 'Rome is king' and so we should listen to Joe.'" Really?

Understand, I do not believe the Bible to be inspired just because it is a historical document. Nor do I believe it simply on its claims.

Also, you must understand that the same criteria (if that's the correct word) that I use in accepting the validity of the Bible is the same I apply to Catholicism.

And guess what? Catholicism does not come close to the powerful and convincing evidence aligned to and with and in the Bible.

I don't allow Paul to simply say he had a vision. I put that claim to the test. Luke's claim that Peter suddenly preached the gospel in Acts 2, that is put the test. That test is extensive. Why? Because it's my soul.

If you have something that is on par with the overwhelming and abundant proof that is lined up in rank and file alongside the Bible, please submit it forthwith to the court. And that for those who are sincere in their search for the truth. Please!

 

[SAVAS]

we'll see soon enough.


you cannot practice --- it is a way of life, in yahshua hamashiach, trusting abba and relying on him for all things, for everything, trusting HIS WORD in yahshua, relying on HIS WORD in yahshua, not accepting any defamation of HIS WORD from anyone or any source, trusting abba yahweh elohim that HIS WORD is TRUTH no matter what men say and that HE HIMSELF REVEALS TRUTH to those who love him trust him and seek him ( in truth turning away from all sin and from all self and from all heresy and from everything and everyone that is not from him(which is most of what you know or even all of what you have ever known and trusted though they are unfaithful) )

i.e. not just trusting HIS WORD, and never trusting yourself as if you can find it out by study or any other means (as yahshua warned his own disciples that if they thought they could, then they had already FAILED; but if they trusted their father in heaven to accomplish all concerning salvation now and for eternity then it was already done) that's the most important difference in trusting in one's self or any man, and trusting yahweh abba elohim in yahshua ----- one leads to death(that's the one almost all men follow willingly and refuse to repent of) , one leads to life (and few find it).



it is straightforward, as true and honest as anything /anyone can be..... but if you only 'try' it for a while to see if you like or approve of it, then you have already failed. that shows a trust in yourself/flesh/carnality and yahweh will not acceed to anyone's demands or tolerate a timid or doubtful soul that's not really depending on HIM and seeking HIM FOR LIFE in YAHSHUA. oh, HE'S VERY MERCIFUL and won't hurt someone already hurting extremely even, but without simple childlike faith it is impossible to please him and he sees completely all things and that includes right through anyone's deception or heresy or hypocrisy......

for instance, if you study something and come to your own conclusion, that's completely different from

TRUSTING YAHWEH and listening to HIM and RECEIVING FROM HIM TRUTH in YAHSHUA (which is required) ..... yahweh calls coming to your own conclusion the same as idolatry. remember peter was told
flesh and blood (study/man/man's ways) had not revealed....... that should be enough......

First of all you don't even know me and your calling me an and all I know an untruthful heretic? God bless you.

A way of life. That makes sense. But there has to be some degree of materializing Sola ie, wake up, stand up, pick up Bible, open Bible...right?

I already believe the Word of God as all Truth, one doesn't even need Scripture to believe this and this isn't in question here.

But it's evident that the scriptures are in fact hard to interpret in some cases. Which brings me to the notion that not everyone, who even has Sola as a way of life, agree on their interpretations but both consider them as Truth. Then what?

 

[mattp0625]

I see the Valient list of nonessential doctrines . Ok

 

[Galahad]

Galahad
i appreciate the kind discussion.
Agreed he never used the word pope
However, we still believe Peter to be the church leader. And the pope his successor. I provided a list of scriptures that demonstrate this, though denied by many here.
Also, please consider the question of establishing one church in light of my "non-essential doctrine" challenge
lastly, the RCC does not adopt sola scriptura

I too appreciate yours.

Got to sign off for now. Can you please direct me to those scriptures. I will review them later.
Thank you,
Galahad.

 

[SAVAS]

The traditions Christ gave them. A new way of life, a new Faith through the resurrection.

 

[Jeff_56]

First of all you don't even know me and your calling me an and all I know an untruthful heretic? ......
A way of life. That makes sense. But there has to be some degree of materializing Sola ie, wake up, stand up, pick up Bible, open Bible...right?

I already believe the Word of God as all Truth, one doesn't even need Scripture to believe this and this isn't in question here.

But it's evident that the scriptures are in fact hard to interpret in some cases. Which brings me to the notion that not everyone, who even has Sola as a way of life, agree on their interpretations but both consider them as Truth. Then what?

working backwards, when the father tells his children truth, when the shepherd calls the sheep, they know, they listen, they hear him and no other shepherd, no other father (his set apart, born again ones, born by his will, not the will of man or of the flesh ...)

what's hard about listening to father ? that's what HIS WORD says to do, and he says HIS WORD is not open to interpretation by men (that's how men got and remain deceived).

yes, everyone abiding in the father, in union in the son yahshua, agree fully , and in anything if they do not agree, they remain in prayer until yahweh reveals HIS WORD - not man's way or idea or choice. this is so rare, you've probably never even expected it let alone seen it - and the rcc totally opposes truth in every way, so you'll never see truth or help or hope coming from man/ the rcc especially; and should never expect any good to come from the rcc.

good ("IF") that you already believe the WORD OF GOD is ALL TRUTH. that separates you entirely from the rcc and most of man's religion. your questions and discussions don't belong on this thread which is simply about the absolute HERESY of the rcc practices, doctrines and all about the rcc.

what part of my post , your thinking, or more importantly GOD'S WORD says or implies that you are an untruthful heretic ?

 

[SAVAS]

I see. Wow. That explains a lot of the confusion with those who have Sola as a way of life though.

 

[mattp0625]

mattp,

You do know that Savas stressed tradition. He referenced 2 Thessalonians 2:15. My question to him is, "What were those traditions that the Thessalonians were taught? And can you please supply reasons for your conclusion. This should not take too much of your time, seeing you have studied 2 Thessalonians 2.15."

Your questions are not an answer to my question.

Also, can you please be clear in your responses? I do not know what you mean by wedding and baptism liturgy.

And similarly, I don't see what connection they have with the traditions that the Thessalonians were taught. Since Savas brought up tradition in Thessalonians, he should state what those traditions were.

This is the problem. Someone makes a statement "Thessalonians followed tradition. That proves the Bible is not the final authority." That's it!

Or, history shows that "Joe O knew the apostle Paul. And Joe O wrote a letter to a church and in the letter Joe said 'Rome is king' and so we should listen to Joe.'" Really?

Understand, I do not believe the Bible to be inspired just because it is a historical document. Nor do I believe it simply on its claims.

Also, you must understand that the same criteria (if that's the correct word) that I use in accepting the validity of the Bible is the same I apply to Catholicism.

And guess what? Catholicism does not come close to the powerful and convincing evidence aligned to and with and in the Bible.

I don't allow Paul to simply say he had a vision. I put that claim to the test. Luke's claim that Peter suddenly preached the gospel in Acts 2, that is put the test. That test is extensive. Why? Because it's my soul.

If you have something that is on par with the overwhelming and abundant proof that is lined up in rank and file alongside the Bible, please submit it forthwith to the court. And that for those who are sincere in their search for the truth. Please!

Galahad
Wouldnt you need to know who Mark was and know he wrote the gospel before you also know he was divinely inspired? I'm glad you know that in your soul, but tradition proves he was the author, not someone named Alex.

Paul was discussing the traditions of his church. I'm not sure that is exclusive to the Thessalonians. Additionally, is not marraige a biblical concept. Jesus spoke of divorce and adultery. It is joining of man and woman into one flesh (before God) per the bible. Yet, the official liturgy is not found in the bible. It was passed on by tradition.

The larger point is, the bible never uses words like faith alone, or faith only, or faith and nothing else or faith is all you need. It's not there. That is man made interpretation. Man is fallible. So are his opinions. Instead the bible lists several things that are profitable.

Worse yet is using personal opinions to condemn others. You'll notice Catholics on this board are not condemning anyone. We focus on shared belief in Christ instead.

 

[Femalelamb]

Also where is pergatory in scripture. And if someone can die and not go to heaven or hell why did Jesus need to come. Is that why Catholics pray for the dead? Or why do they give offerings on behalf of the dead. It's a lot like Mormons who believe they can give or be Baptised for the dead.