Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?

[Ernie07]

Hello Ernie

as a building the foundation of church is rock or Concrete. AS a teaching the foundation af the Church is the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus was ask who am I, peter Said you are the Messiah, upon this faith(faith that believe Jesus is the messiah Jesus build the Church)

Key is something to open

what we need to open heaven.

it is faith that believe Jesus is the Messiah

so every body that believe Jesus AS Messiah, holding the key to heaven, include Peter and million who accept Jesus.

Hi Jackson,

I can appreciate your interpretation of scripture and can see how you came to that decision. I have a different interpretation as you know, which hopefully you can see the plausibility of although you don't agree with it. So, how can we eliminate and emotion, preconceived notions, or bias in order to determine which interpretation is based on truth because we can't both be right. In fact, maybe both of us are wrong. The only way to do that, in my opinion, is to prove that our beliefs can be validated throughout the lifetime of the Church. Otherwise, we make Jesus impotent and unable to keep His promise.

So I ask if your beliefs above are in fact the truth show me the evidence that the Church believed as you believe. I'll answer my own question via every council document where the authority of the Bishop of Rome is clearly seen. This is in alignment with the interpretation of Jesus giving the keys to Peter as the head of Jesus' Church. This takes nothing away from Jesus as He is the Cornerstone. Peter is simply His representative on earth. If you can't show me where the Church believed as you believe can you at least show me where the Church dismissed what I believe?

If you can't answer either of my questions to you isn't it incumbent upon yourself and for the sake of Jesus and His truth to ask yourself why?

-Ernie-

 

[notuptome]

We can CERTAINLY talk about false doctrines! The very FIRST DEPARTURE from the Catholic Church was made by Martin Luther. No reasonable non-Catholic disputes that, since it's all history at this point. Martin Luther is the one who started the "faith alone" scenario. Shall we test that against "inspired scripture?" Here is the link to the scripture, in many versions (for clarification of the meaning):

Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,


And immediately below, we can find SOME of Martin Luther's claims and statements that he lived by, and urged OTHERS to live by!!!

https://www.alltheinternet.com/?q=martin+luther+commit+adultery+times+day&ref=12282017101146&p=

It should not take anyone very long to see that Martin Luther's "faith" was in direct OPPOSITION to the INSPIRED SCRIPTURE found in Hebrews 10:26, and that, according the Hebrews scripture, Martin Luther had REJECTED the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made, by WILLING CONTINUING TO SIN, based on FAITH ALONE!!!

You certainly have a problem with salvation by grace wholly apart from works. You have a problem with being sealed unto the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit.

Place Hebrews 10:26 into context and learn that nothing is added to the finished work of Christ. Adding sacraments to grace is precisely what the writer of Hebrews is warning against.

Hebrews 10:7 ¶ Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 ¶ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Describes the Roman Catholic miasma to a T.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Ernie07]

What Magenta is saying it that it is a S - T - R - E - T - C - H from Peter to Pope Francis, the champion of the fake Global Warming agenda (or any other Pontifex Maximus).

If indeed Peter was the first pope, don't you think that it is rather odd that the epistle to the Romans does not even have a whisper about Peter? Or was the Holy Spirit putting a guard against the false doctrine of the papacy?

Hi Nehemiah,

I'll have to admit that I'm not a fan of some of Pope Francis' political ideals and socialist agenda, but that has nothing to do with his authority as given by Jesus.

To answer your question, I don't really question whether any of the Word of God is odd or not. What arrogance it would be for me to question God's Word. What I do find odd/concerning is that you would question the motive of the Holy Spirit based on pure conjecture on your part. I'd humbly recommend that you be very careful about that line of thinking toward any aspect of the Word of God.

-Ernie-

 

[Inquistor]

You are forgetting that long before Martin Luther there were men like John Wycliffe and others who exposed the GROSS ERRORS of the RCC and paid a severe price for doing so. The Catholic Church would not listen to Wycliffe and chose to kill him. So attacking Martin Luther will get you nowhere. Christians do not make Luther the Protestant Pope, but definitely rely on the Holy Bible (66 books) for their doctrine.

66 books, huh? Did you know that the King James Version of the bible had EIGHTY BOOKS in it, until at least 1881? That is a VERY LONG TIME to contain "false scriptures!" Why did they "CONTAIN ERRORS" FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS?


Why Were 14 Books Removed from the Bible in 1881? | Rocking God's House

 

[Ernie07]

There is no true Queen of Heaven, so that is another papish invention. You will not find a single Scripture to support that false teaching.

Hello,

You are falling into the trap of needing exact words to match your beliefs, which I've already pointed out in a previous post the dangers of doing that (i.e. Trinity not found in the Bible). The Queen of Heaven belief can be supported by referencing Rev 12:1 where we find "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon at her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars". I realize that you will not agree with the interpretation, but you must admit that a crown aligns with being a queen. But, just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong. Why do you believe your interpretation is correct and who else believed as you do? On what authority do you make your interpretation? If you consistently find that your beliefs have a timeline that starts in the 15th or 16th century aren't you curious where the truth was hiding for 1500 years?

Thanks for this back and forth discussion. I look forward to your response.

-Ernie-

 

[Inquistor]

Hello,

You are falling into the trap of needing exact words to match your beliefs, which I've already pointed out in a previous post the dangers of doing that (i.e. Trinity not found in the Bible). The Queen of Heaven belief can be supported by referencing Rev 12:1 where we find "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon at her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars". I realize that you will not agree with the interpretation, but you must admit that a crown aligns with being a queen. But, just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong. Why do you believe your interpretation is correct and who else believed as you do? On what authority do you make your interpretation? If you consistently find that your beliefs have a timeline that starts in the 15th or 16th century aren't you curious where the truth was hiding for 1500 years?

Thanks for this back and forth discussion. I look forward to your response.

-Ernie-

168 Blessed Virgin Mary images ... found by Google!


https://www.google.com/search?q=wom...hXqJsAKHaLjAHwQ9QEILzAD#imgrc=WJywCtP9s6OJyM:

 

[Ernie07]

What on earth are you arguing??? The New Testament was not written in Aramaic. I am sorry to hear that you are incapable of grasping the difference between masculine and feminine. It may cause you untold problems in your life

Hi Magenta,

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I never said that the NT was written in Aramaic. What I said was that Jesus SPOKE in Aramaic and the point I was making is that sometimes things are lost in the translation. The Greek language has a masculine and feminine distinction while Aramaic does not. What I wrote is what Jesus said. You are trying to spin the meaning of what He said by your own interpretation based on the translation rather than what was actually said by Jesus. Please re-read my earlier post with this in mind and if you still have questions I'll be happy to reply.

-Ernie-

 

[blue_ladybug]

There is no queen of heaven. God doesn't need a queen. Just saying..

 

[Inquistor]

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

For the cause of Christ
Roger

John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven ...[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: s, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]... Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and
whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. ...
[SIZE=-1]//biblehub.com/john/20-23.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] - 17k[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Jackson123]

Hi Jackson,

I can appreciate your interpretation of scripture and can see how you came to that decision. I have a different interpretation as you know, which hopefully you can see the plausibility of although you don't agree with it. So, how can we eliminate and emotion, preconceived notions, or bias in order to determine which interpretation is based on truth because we can't both be right. In fact, maybe both of us are wrong. The only way to do that, in my opinion, is to prove that our beliefs can be validated throughout the lifetime of the Church. Otherwise, we make Jesus impotent and unable to keep His promise.

So I ask if your beliefs above are in fact the truth show me the evidence that the Church believed as you believe. I'll answer my own question via every council document where the authority of the Bishop of Rome is clearly seen. This is in alignment with the interpretation of Jesus giving the keys to Peter as the head of Jesus' Church. This takes nothing away from Jesus as He is the Cornerstone. Peter is simply His representative on earth. If you can't show me where the Church believed as you believe can you at least show me where the Church dismissed what I believe?

If you can't answer either of my questions to you isn't it incumbent upon yourself and for the sake of Jesus and His truth to ask yourself why?

-Ernie-

hello Ernie, If you want to know the truth, the standart is the bible. So If the church play politic, you know It. In the history of church, make mistake, for Example, sale indulgence, inquisition, killing unbeliever.

So I am not agree to use church AS standart. I have bible AS a standart.

And I believe the foundation of Christianity is the faith that believe that Jesus is Messiah, not Peter

one day Jesus rebuke peter, another dayPeter Deny Jesus,

base oN those 2 fact I believe the foundation of Christianity is the faith that Jesus is Messiah,

and the key to heaven is the faith that believe that Jesus is Messiah, It is in John 3:16 Said that whosoever believe in Him Will be save. That is the key

also I give you a link that may help you to consider, this link say a catholic monk, well know archeolog, found Peter tomb in Jerusalem, and If you read bible, you may believe that Paul established a Rome church not Peter, there isn't evident from the bible that Peter ever in Rome.

The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem, 1953

 

[Ernie07]

Hello Ernie
thanks for your respon

how do you know Mary able to hear you, would you like to provide me with a verse or verses AS a clue why you believe Mary able to hear billion catholic?

Hi Jackson,

Rev 5:8 speaks of "the prayers of the saints". Catholics interpret that passage as prayer requests made by people to the saints in heaven who present them to God on our behalf. The Church from its early days as the single universal church is proven to have believed this. You will likely not agree with that, but your disagreement doesn't make it wrong. My authority is the authority of the Church to interpret scripture accurately as given it by Jesus as I've pointed out in numerous posts. I have no idea where your authority comes from and would like to know.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Hello,

You are falling into the trap of needing exact words to match your beliefs, which I've already pointed out in a previous post the dangers of doing that (i.e. Trinity not found in the Bible). The Queen of Heaven belief can be supported by referencing Rev 12:1 where we find "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon at her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars". I realize that you will not agree with the interpretation, but you must admit that a crown aligns with being a queen. But, just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong. Why do you believe your interpretation is correct and who else believed as you do? On what authority do you make your interpretation? If you consistently find that your beliefs have a timeline that starts in the 15th or 16th century aren't you curious where the truth was hiding for 1500 years?

Thanks for this back and forth discussion. I look forward to your response.

-Ernie-

Sorry Ernie you must have missed my earlier post regarding this.

*
Relative to this subject, Jeremiah Chapter 7 talks about Israel participating in rituals to honour The Queen of Heaven
and how it provokes The Lord to anger. Jeremiah 7: 17-19

The Queen of Heaven is older than Catholicism. She is Babylonian and Caananite and The Lord God hates to see his people honouring her vile image.

Jeremaiah 7

16 “So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you.17 Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?18 The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.19 But am I the one they are provoking? declares the Lord. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?

Many Christians and Bible scholars regard the sign of the woman in Revelation 12 to be symbolic of either Israel or the Church, The Bride of Christ. She is the opposite of the whore of Babylon. Most certainly not Mary. Revelation relies heavily on OT prophetic symbolism

 

[Inquistor]

there isn't evident from the bible that Peter ever in Rome.

St. Peter's Basilica, Rome - A View On Cities
www.aviewoncities.com/rome/sanpietro.htm▼
The church is built on Vatican Hill, across the Tiber river from the historic center of Rome. The location is highly symbolic: this was the site where Saint Peter, the chief apostle, died a martyr and where he was buried in 64 AD. St. Peter is considered the first pope, so it made perfect sense for the papacy to build the principal ...

 

[Inquistor]

You certainly have a problem with salvation by grace wholly apart from works. You have a problem with being sealed unto the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit.

Place Hebrews 10:26 into context and learn that nothing is added to the finished work of Christ. Adding sacraments to grace is precisely what the writer of Hebrews is warning against.

Where did you get those wild ideas? Hebrews 10:26 is warning that IF a person INTENTIONALLY SINS, the sacrifice that Jesus made WILL NOT SAVE THAT PERSON!

What I have a HUGE problem with, is IGNORING certain scriptures because those don't CONFORM to certain peoples' beliefs, no matter how far they stray from SCRIPTURAL TEACHINGS!

 

[Ernie07]

Plus the fact that the Catholic clergymen like to wear big hats.........it's the worst.....big hats were warned about with Paul but it doesn't seem to bother them. Big hats imo are the most offensive....wait that kissing the ring thing.....did they take that from the God father or vice versa....nay....it's the hat thing.....wait...holy water where did they get that idea? ....so much to say here.....I guess traditions don't define ones faith or do they.
Imo I think the more traditional a church becomes it's because of lack of true spiritual relationship with God in Christ.
Salvation by works, infant baptism, prayers to saints, all of it ....most of it ..to fill a void....sad to see our advasary deceiving the masses in the name of Christ.

Hi Pottersclay,

Just curious, how do you read MT 16:18? How do you identify the Church that Jesus built and protected? What does it mean to be protected from the perspective of His Church? How do you validate that you a part of the Church Jesus speaks of? What criteria do you use to know your beliefs are based on truth?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

They were first called Christians in Antioch.

The word "catholic" is not even in the Bible.

Hi Magenta,

Are you saying that you do not believe in a universal Church? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus' prayer for unity (John 17:20-23)? Is not "oneness" another name for common or universal? And do you not agree with the first council of Nicaea? And if not then can you prove who is the Church and what did they believe in 325 A.D.?

And I have to ask, do you not believe in the Trinity (because it is not specifically mentioned by name in the Bible)?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Inquistor]

Hi Magenta,

Are you saying that you do not believe in a universal Church? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus' prayer for unity (John 17:20-23)? Is not "oneness" another name for common or universal? And do you not agree with the first council of Nicaea? And if not then can you prove who is the Church and what did they believe in 325 A.D.?

And I have to ask, do you not believe in the Trinity (because it is not specifically mentioned by name in the Bible)?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

The case for the assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the Savior of the world!

The Case for the Assumption of Mary

 

[Ernie07]

Catholicism is a cult set on idolatry, with no security of the believer. Another words you can lose your salvation which means they deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which seals the eternal security of one that is saved by the Grace of God. They believe they can crucify Jesus over and over again for each sin they commit.
They pray to Mary, Peter and who knows what other "saint" they pray to. God saves us from our sins not in our sins. Repentance in this case is warranted. (you can't stay a Catholic if your saved)

Hi REM,

I believe I've addressed all of your assertions about the Catholic faith on previous posts (if you don't think I have please let me know) so I won't go into any more detail, but I would like to pose a situation for you so I can understand where you're coming from.

Let's say on December 27, 2017 I gave my life to the Lord and truly believe He is my Lord, God, and Savior and I legitimately receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as you call it. Everything is legit at that moment in time.

Then, on August 20, 2019 I enter into an adulterous relationship and because I'm really mad at my wife I have no regrets and no contrition at all. In fact, I believe what I did was justified.

Are you saying that I do not have to be sorry and offer any contrition and expression of sorrow for my actions and that I would still be saved? I don't in any way mean to offend as that is how I interpret what you're saying so I just want to be clear in my understanding.

Thank you.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I certainly didn't. They even changed the meaning of 'saint'. In The Bible saints is just a word for believers. We are all saints. The Holy Roman Church turned it into a title only they can bestow. With a load of conditions attached to it such as having to have performed a number of "miracles".

I'm confused...saints are defined as a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous while a believer simply believes in something. I can believe in who Jesus is but not be a saint. Satan is the classic example. How can you possibly equate the 2? Honest question because where does it state in the Bible that believers = saints?

-Ernie-

 

[notuptome]

John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven ...[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: s, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]... Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and
whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. ...
[SIZE=-1]//biblehub.com/john/20-23.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] - 17k[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Where did you get those wild ideas? Hebrews 10:26 is warning that IF a person INTENTIONALLY SINS, the sacrifice that Jesus made WILL NOT SAVE THAT PERSON!

What I have a HUGE problem with, is IGNORING certain scriptures because those don't CONFORM to certain peoples' beliefs, no matter how far they stray from SCRIPTURAL TEACHINGS!

My oh my. One minute you ascribe to the priest the power to forgive sin and in the next you deny the total efficacy of the blood of Christ.

Sorry that biblical context takes your proof texts and reveals that you are not presenting sound doctrine.

James describes the man who is double minded. Roman catholic soteriology is really a mess of works and incremental grace as if there were such a thing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger