I was wondering who believes you can get unsaved.
- Thread starter enril
- 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.
So what about those 22 scriptures?? You want to talk about those? How do you explain what God has said in those verses? Did you read them? I didn’t give them all—I found several more from another post that I left out. How do you explain what God said when He said He would BLOT PEOPLE OUT OF HIS BOOK OF LIFE if they sinned? I’d like you to explain that.
I’m surprised you would think the early church fathers were Catholic when the Catholic Church was not founded until the 6th century—590 AD when Greggory the 1 became the first “pope.” Anyone can claim anything and I am aware of the “claims” of the Catholic Church. They are the oldest denomination but NOT the oldest church. The church that Christ built in AD 33 was NOT the Catholic Church. You have only to examine the church in the New Testament and Jesus’s doctrine and teachings to see that the New Testament “Church of Christ” Romans 16:16 is not ANYTHING like the Catholic Church. Jesus taught that we should call no man Father (religiously), a title the Catholic Church uses; Jesus did not approve of idolatry or image worship, which is a major practice of Catholicism; Christ’s doctrine teaches us to pray to God, not Mary or any man (saint); He teaches us in Revelation that we should NOT BOW DOWN TO ANY MAN—only to God; Catholicism contradicts this.
2Thess. 2:3-12 describes the Catholic Church in not flattering terms: Paul says there will come a “FALLING AWAY” (from the true church of Christ/-the one that Jesus started). A man of SIN who EXALTS HIMSELF above all that is God; sits AS GOD in the temple of God, CLAIMING TO BE GOD. Paul says it is the WORK of SATAN. It is DECEPTION. And he says the “lawlessness” is already at work. Is this not a description of the “pope” of the Catholic Church? He claims to be “God on earth.” He exalts himself above everyone. He sits in his temple and claim to be God. He says he is deity and can forgive sins. He has people bow down to him and worship him and kiss his hand (ring). If the Catholic Church began in the New Testament, then this is it! But it is NOT THE CHURCH THAT CHRIST BUILT.
The early church fathers, like Clement of Rome (90-98), Ignatius (107-128), Polycarp (71-155), Justin Martyr (100-165), Tertullias (155-230), and Clement of Alexandria (150-215) were NOT CATHOLIC. How could they be when there WAS NO CATHOLIC CHURCH until the 6th century. That’s at least 400 years too late! Don’t be deceived.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You're preaching to the choir here man. I disagree with you about the beginnings of the Catholic church. While Constantine did not create what we know as the RCC today. He basically transformed the religious system into a political one overnight. The RCC grew into a beast, but Constantine birthed the beast. Additionally, the poster I was responding to was bagging Augustine of Hippo because he was Catholic. Augustine died in 430 if I am not mistaken. Nearly 200 years before the First Pope.
Why is the good shepherd described as19o99 seeking lost sheep, if they are not lost?
Luke 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
Why does the prodigal father say his son was lost and dead, if He was not lost and dead?
Like 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Luke 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
Why does the prodigal father say his son was lost and dead, if He was not lost and dead?
Like 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
-
2
- Show all
It's one thing to read the Bible, whereas quite another to interpret the Bible.
There are improperly catechized individuals all across the internet-- on
forums, message boards, and social media --quoting the Bible when it's
none of their business to be doing so, for example:
"Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant
and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction". (2Pet 3:15-16)
_
Constantine actually stayed out of religious decisions. It's precisely why he called the Nicene council, so that the leadership of the church itself would decide matters of orthodox doctrine.
the bishop of Rome didn't even attend.
it wasn't till later that the RCC became absolutely divorced from the rest of the church and transformed into a monster.
the bishop of Rome didn't even attend.
it wasn't till later that the RCC became absolutely divorced from the rest of the church and transformed into a monster.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
History, being what is, none of us can say with certainty what Constantine did or didn't do? But you have clearly looked into it deeper than myself. Are you of the opinion that Constantine was sincere or that he made a political decision. Looking into his recorded history, it does not seem to me to have been sincere. He went on in later years to build monuments depicting his self as greater than Apollo.
-
2
- Show all
didn't Solomon make some poor decisions in his later years? and some of the things both did, they did because they were rulers and for political expediency, had to do. this is in itself another reason Christians should beware getting into worldly politics - the Bible never describes the church as if it should wield the sword of the government, in the same way the government should not rule the church. every time it has, it has been a disaster.
but yes i believe he was sincere. it's difficult to come to firm conclusions about his character from history, because what's written about him was written by people who were big fans of his. but we do have the records of the Nicene council, and tho he 'presided' and payed the way of all the representatives to come to it, there's no indication he imposed his will over anything that was decided there.
he did move the Roman empire away from paganism, and even if it was perhaps only in the interest of peace within his empire, he influenced as much of the church that was within the empire to come to terms with its internal disagreements and formally establish what was right doctrine and what was heresy. these were good things. i don't agree he created the RCC - there wasn't any such thing at the time, just one of several bishoprics, of which Jerusalem or Antioch was probably chief, but none of them thought themselves better than the others. all. Christians everywhere were part of the 'catholic' - meaning general - church.
but in fact part of the reason the church in Rome probably started moving towards claiming itself to be head was because Constantine had moved the capital of the empire away from there - so the city that was once great, once the center of power all over Europe and north Africa and the Levant etc, was now hardly important at all. Eventually the Empire would be so busy fighting Islamicists that it couldn't protect insignificant Rome way off to the west anymore, and it was sacked several times. It was in that time period, hundreds of years after Constantine, that the RCC became wholly separated from orthodoxy and divorced itself from the reality of the Bible and of history. They made themselves popes and politically ruled all of Italy because the actual Roman empire had more or less abandoned them.
that orthodoxy that the RCC divided itself from is now what's called the Eastern Orthodox church and has almost not changed at all since that time.
but yes i believe he was sincere. it's difficult to come to firm conclusions about his character from history, because what's written about him was written by people who were big fans of his. but we do have the records of the Nicene council, and tho he 'presided' and payed the way of all the representatives to come to it, there's no indication he imposed his will over anything that was decided there.
he did move the Roman empire away from paganism, and even if it was perhaps only in the interest of peace within his empire, he influenced as much of the church that was within the empire to come to terms with its internal disagreements and formally establish what was right doctrine and what was heresy. these were good things. i don't agree he created the RCC - there wasn't any such thing at the time, just one of several bishoprics, of which Jerusalem or Antioch was probably chief, but none of them thought themselves better than the others. all. Christians everywhere were part of the 'catholic' - meaning general - church.
but in fact part of the reason the church in Rome probably started moving towards claiming itself to be head was because Constantine had moved the capital of the empire away from there - so the city that was once great, once the center of power all over Europe and north Africa and the Levant etc, was now hardly important at all. Eventually the Empire would be so busy fighting Islamicists that it couldn't protect insignificant Rome way off to the west anymore, and it was sacked several times. It was in that time period, hundreds of years after Constantine, that the RCC became wholly separated from orthodoxy and divorced itself from the reality of the Bible and of history. They made themselves popes and politically ruled all of Italy because the actual Roman empire had more or less abandoned them.
that orthodoxy that the RCC divided itself from is now what's called the Eastern Orthodox church and has almost not changed at all since that time.
i learned A LOT listening through this series - -
https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/153474
which he recently started over, and is going much slower and more in depth.
RCC seems to be a pet peeve of his so he went over a whole lot of the facts particularly about the origins and real history of it - - you cannot believe catholic sources of history, period. we should be skeptical of people who have an obvious anti-RCC agenda, too.
but long, fairly in-depth, super informative and interesting church history series, from pentecost to current day. not trying to slant things just give the real story.
reccomended listening
https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/153474
which he recently started over, and is going much slower and more in depth.
RCC seems to be a pet peeve of his so he went over a whole lot of the facts particularly about the origins and real history of it - - you cannot believe catholic sources of history, period. we should be skeptical of people who have an obvious anti-RCC agenda, too.
but long, fairly in-depth, super informative and interesting church history series, from pentecost to current day. not trying to slant things just give the real story.
reccomended listening
-
1
- Show all
Ecclesiastes 1:17-18
-
1
- Show all