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.
That is true, a family made up of all true believers in all denominations around the world.
This means that as there are many families with fathers, so there are many church families with many fathers. We call them denominations. Well it would be true but we remember that Jesus said to his church 'call no man father'. So we cannot speak of someone as being the father of a church.
He left Peter with 'keys' to the Kingly Rule of heaven on earth. He used those keys to open salvation to the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10).
These keys were based on the keys of knowledge (Luke 11.52) given to Scribes when they graduated who were then told they could bind and loose.
So the fact that Peter was then told he could bind and loose demonstrates that Jesus was thinking of the keys of knowledge.
In Matthew 18 ALL the disciples are told they could bind and loose. So clearly ALL the disciples were given keys of knowledge.
Its easy really if you know the Scriptures.
well I suspect the Jew would think of the keys of knowledge which were given to the Scribes, especially as they were connected with binding and loosing. why on earth would they think of keys handed to a chamberlain. Jesus stressed that His disciples were NOT TO SEEK authoritative positions. Was He going against His own teachings? In fact the disciples did not see Jesus words in that way. They argued amongst themselves who was going to be the greatest. how could they have done that if they knew Peter had been elected as chamberlain? LOL.
No he gave the keys to ALL the disciples otherwise they would not be able to bind and loose.
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven. --- Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
This means that as there are many families with fathers, so there are many church families with many fathers. We call them denominations. Well it would be true but we remember that Jesus said to his church 'call no man father'. So we cannot speak of someone as being the father of a church.
He left Peter with 'keys' to the Kingly Rule of heaven on earth. He used those keys to open salvation to the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10).
These keys were based on the keys of knowledge (Luke 11.52) given to Scribes when they graduated who were then told they could bind and loose.
So the fact that Peter was then told he could bind and loose demonstrates that Jesus was thinking of the keys of knowledge.
In Matthew 18 ALL the disciples are told they could bind and loose. So clearly ALL the disciples were given keys of knowledge.
Its easy really if you know the Scriptures.
well I suspect the Jew would think of the keys of knowledge which were given to the Scribes, especially as they were connected with binding and loosing. why on earth would they think of keys handed to a chamberlain. Jesus stressed that His disciples were NOT TO SEEK authoritative positions. Was He going against His own teachings? In fact the disciples did not see Jesus words in that way. They argued amongst themselves who was going to be the greatest. how could they have done that if they knew Peter had been elected as chamberlain? LOL.
No he gave the keys to ALL the disciples otherwise they would not be able to bind and loose.
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven. --- Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
I am quite well aware of what the Gnostics taught, although it is IRRELEVANT here. We do not see material things a bad. That is simply untrue. But we do recognise that in dealing with the GOD WHO IS SPIRIT (John 4.24) we must approach him spiritually. Jesus never taught fleshly activity in spiritual things. Indeed He condemned it. As He said, what comes out of the body is waste. It is what comes out of man's heart and spirit that is important.
Don't worry. I've just checked. I AM VISIBLE LOL And so are all my church, and all the churches I know. Jesus did not establish a society. He established a growing group of men and women filled with the Holy Spirit who would be members of independent churches all looking to HIM He is the head of the church. They need no other.
He took human form so that He could deliver us from the sinfulness of our human bodies. He does not want us to be just like human bodies. He is concerned with our 'hearts'. He became human to deliver us from the sin within our humanity so that He might raise us as spiritual bodies. Thus your comparison does not hold good.
Only in so far as each member is united with Christ. There is no 'mystical body'. There is the literal resurrection body of Christ of which all who truly come to Him become literal members. We are one body IN HIM, because united with His body. No one who is unsaved is a member of that body.
Yes all who truly believe in Him as Saviour and Lord are all united with Him in HIS body. We are not a body separate from Him. As we are united with Him in HIS body so we have different functions.
But NOT as a separate body on earth. What you call the mystical body is not the church, it is Christ's body. When we become His we are united with Him in His body no matter what denomination we belong to . We are made one in Him. You try to make the church separate from Christ. But you cannot. We are one body because we are united with Him in His body. It is a spiritual relationship.
How could there be a division in Christ's body? It is one IN HIM. Its unity is heavenly not earthly. We who are His operate in HIM and as members of HIS BODY, as He lives through us. Christ dwells within us because we are HIS BODY.
On this we can agree as long as you recognise that it is His body and do not try to make it into some individual church.
Yes notice that the head is an equal part of the body. Christ is NOT the head in that sense. Indeed how could He be? He is the whole body.
Not it is not hierarchically organised. It is united with Christ. HE is its unity. It needs no hierarchy.
It has nothing to do with being hierarchically organised. It has one unified activity because it is active THROUGH CHRIST. All its members are people who are truly His, and all operate through Him.
As long as you recognise that HE is also the body. Just as we are ruled by our heads, so the living body of Jesus is ruled by His head. But the body is not separate from the head. HE is the head of HIS LITERAL BODY, with which we are united.
The Head and members together form one Body, with one shared divine life.
Because all ARE His body. The church is not His body. It becomes part of His body by being united with Him. He is both body and head.
Because the body in that case is operated by the soul and spirit. It is one united person. It is not composed of any external parts.
No you have missed the point of the whole illustration. You are taking an earthly church and treating it as if it was in some way the body of Christ.
but that is not so. The Spirit of Jesus Christ is the soul of HIS body. It is not the soul of the church. We partake by being made one with HIM in HIS body, not by ourselves being some mystical body..
Because IN THE SPIRIT they had been spiritually incorporated into Christ's literal body. This is not a church he is talking about. It does not refer to becoming a member of a church. It refers to the wonderful union of Christ with all who become His. It is deeply spiritual, not a matter of church membership.
.
No it is not, not in the way YOU mean it. It is ACTUALLT being united with Christ Himself in HIS literal body.
Nonsense. It is SPECIFICALLY INDIVIDUAL. I, I, I not WE. Christ does live IN ME and He lives through me as an individual as He did with Paul.
No he is talking about individual believers being united with Christ HIMSELF not with some earthly body. We are members of Christ HIMSELF.
The church is HIS BODY because it is united with Him, not because it is some earthly body making spurious clams
you are the heretic*, according to SCRIPTURE and according to the rules of this site AND THIS THREAD/OP "rcc is heresy", remember.
here on a site for christians, you represent the nazi gestapo enemy satan.
this is "de facto" - a given. you cannot change that.
you cannot convince any true christian, or anyone born again in JESUS, that rcc is not demonic, because it is demonic.
*some are truthfully just ignorant , potentially, i.e. not all who are in rcc are heretic, but all those who promote it or defend it after being warned of it's demonic nature are guilty of heresy right along with it.
here on a site for christians, you represent the nazi gestapo enemy satan.
this is "de facto" - a given. you cannot change that.
you cannot convince any true christian, or anyone born again in JESUS, that rcc is not demonic, because it is demonic.
*some are truthfully just ignorant , potentially, i.e. not all who are in rcc are heretic, but all those who promote it or defend it after being warned of it's demonic nature are guilty of heresy right along with it.
F
The Remnant, the Body of Christ that worships and Spiritand in truth in unity with the Holy Spirit and the Word as well as with each other walking in obedience to the Spirit and the Word.
I do do not desire to impute the flae teachings against you. I merely desire that you know God and His Word and be filled with His Spirit. May we each ask God to search our hearts and see if there be any wrong thing in it. And that we do not hold onto the mere traditions of man, but His Word.
May God bless you and keep you and shine His face upon you and give you peace. May the Father of Light fill you and make you all true sons of light. May we take this week which is the national week of repentance and repent of religiosity and ask God to transform us, our families, our fellowships, our cities and nations to follow His narrow way. In Jesus' Holy name.
I do do not desire to impute the flae teachings against you. I merely desire that you know God and His Word and be filled with His Spirit. May we each ask God to search our hearts and see if there be any wrong thing in it. And that we do not hold onto the mere traditions of man, but His Word.
May God bless you and keep you and shine His face upon you and give you peace. May the Father of Light fill you and make you all true sons of light. May we take this week which is the national week of repentance and repent of religiosity and ask God to transform us, our families, our fellowships, our cities and nations to follow His narrow way. In Jesus' Holy name.
F
Ok this is to my Catholic brothers and sisters but also to everyone here... No I am not one to believe that you are not Christian if you attend a Catholic fellowship. God places his people anywhere He chooses. Now do I think there could be goats among any sheep? Yep... Even here on CC. I do not agree with all of the Catholic doctrine, but I also do not agree with lots of brothers and sisters about specific doctrines. I lean on the Word alone. Also, scripture warns us all to beware of false teachers, false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, and goats among the lambs, and so I pray each one of us would search the scriptures for ourselves and not just listen to what man says. Often if we are sincerely doing that and seeking Gods wisdom, the right preachers, teachers, prophets, brothers, sisters, and mothers will merely confirm what we are learning... But still the Word also says that we only know in part, and prophecy in part... And we all fall short of the glory of God... And we are all here wrapped in skin (our flesh)... So we all have the capacity to be wrong and right in different areas. I believe all have our blind spots, right? Let's become the generation of love, and that overcomes the divisions of our farthers generation... One that says yes to His Holy Spirit, and no to religiosity... Yes to true religion, to prayer, to worship in Spirit nd in truth... No to pointing the finger of critism, yes to prayer for discernment, yes to unity in God and forgiveness and mercy towards one another. That they'll know we are Christians by our love. That the lost's blood will not be on our own heads. Please I ask of you each for the sake of love that while we discuss what we believe let's remember to pray and speak in love at all times.
So what do you think of this scripture below? I am not sharing this to be argumentative, merely to ask what do you think?
Matthew 12:46, 48-50 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
So what do you think of this scripture below? I am not sharing this to be argumentative, merely to ask what do you think?
Matthew 12:46, 48-50 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
I wish I could say I love how you misuse Scripture and misrepresent it in order to support your heretical teachings. But I don't. I abhor it. Didn't you note that it was JESUS Who said that she was not especially blessed, not me.
For when the woman cried out to Jesus 'blessed is the womb which bore you and the nipples you have sucked' HIS reply was, 'YES RATHER, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it'.
For when the woman cried out to Jesus 'blessed is the womb which bore you and the nipples you have sucked' HIS reply was, 'YES RATHER, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it'.
Originally Posted by valiant
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA lol YOU ARE KILLING ME. Ok show me where it says MARY IS SINLESS, show me where it says she was a perpetual virgin, show me where it says that SHE can hear your intercessions, show me where it calls the Mass a non-bloody sacrifice, show me where it approves of prayers to the dead, show me where it mentions indulgences. When you have done that satisfactorily I will give you the next list.
the liar and the father of lies has been speaking with their complete willingness through the rcc for almost 2000 years.
he's not about to easily let go of his subjects now.
if anyone who happens to be a true believer in the rcc at this time is seeking to discuss scripture or ask questions,
start a thread to do so
and do not import anything from the rcc demonic doctrines - just seek the truth in scripture and from scripture in
God's Purpose and Plan and Life in JESUS, and you will be helped.
if you promote rcc demonic doctrines and heresy or things from man and not from God , rcc or not, expect trouble then.
he's not about to easily let go of his subjects now.
if anyone who happens to be a true believer in the rcc at this time is seeking to discuss scripture or ask questions,
start a thread to do so
and do not import anything from the rcc demonic doctrines - just seek the truth in scripture and from scripture in
God's Purpose and Plan and Life in JESUS, and you will be helped.
if you promote rcc demonic doctrines and heresy or things from man and not from God , rcc or not, expect trouble then.
Last edited:
But these books did not predate the publishing of the Gospels or the spreading of Paul's, Peter, and John's letters. The Gospels and the letters preceded the Didache and Ignatius.
The Gospels and the letters of Paul are quite clear on baptism. It is to be carried out on all who BELIEVE. So why do we need the Didache which was written by an obscure church? Ignatius was overenthusiastic about bishops. What he taught is not Scriptural. The Philippians had plural bishops. John told us of bishops he disagreed with. Was the church where Diotrephes was, or where Demetrius was? LOL
The Gospels and the letters of Paul are quite clear on baptism. It is to be carried out on all who BELIEVE. So why do we need the Didache which was written by an obscure church? Ignatius was overenthusiastic about bishops. What he taught is not Scriptural. The Philippians had plural bishops. John told us of bishops he disagreed with. Was the church where Diotrephes was, or where Demetrius was? LOL
lets see what a Roman Catholic author says about this :
The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
M
Jimbone
I did understand what you meant, rather than said!
And, this is a big subject, so I will try to be brief.
First, it is true, that at least some reject all things outside scripture, so regard it as the only authority not just the supreme authority, without intending to pull punches, notupthome has repeatedly said the writings of fathers as uninspired , irrelevant, not worth reading.
Leaving that opinion aside,
The question is rather more nuanced and blurred, than you make it seem for several distinct reasons
First is interpretation. Most of our differences are interpretation, and it is hard for protestants to deny that their are multiple alternative interpretations , even just their side of the fence, take multiple interpretations of eucharist. Not that scripture is not authority but what does scripture mean?
To resolve the differences needs more than just scripture. Scripture does not self stand.
If then you go outside scripture in order to determine the meaning of it, sola scriptura becomes blurred .
Be it jewish custom, the tradition of the early church or even history that resolves it. Does sola scriptura still hold?
But it is worse than just differing interpretations of accepted things like eucharist,
Whether scripture even covers an issue of doctrine, can be a matter of interpretation too.
Without debating the issue pointing only at the argument of it, the "keys of the kingdom" as interpreted as the
office of steward in a davidic kingdom as per old testament has far reaching consequences, where some use the word keys in more modern context to deny it is an office.
So is the role of papacy there or not? The issue is not sola scriptura but interpretation of that and other scriptures
But beyond the issue of interpretation is also what is "necessary truth"
Assuming we all remove the absurd, that disciples breathed, and scripture does not say so, because it is not necessary doctrine, you are left with alltogether vexed questions.
Take a doctrine that launched 1000 arguments, the honorary title of "mary as queen", disregarding the historical context of that title used in Davidic times as a mother of a king. If we do not believe that it is necessary for salvation to honour her , but we do so anyway, then why do protestants bother to dispute whether it is in scripture or not?
If your regard sola scriptura as only "necessary truth"? Then if we regard it as not necessary, how does it violate sola scriptura? Ignore the example, see the generality. Deciding what is necessary is also a problem.
But that begs a further question.
If we hold that the didache defines in detail what scripture pointed in general, can you ignore the details of the didache, or other early church eg ignatius, so appoint bishops. So is that adding to scripture, or determining the meaning of it?
To another issue and equally vexed question. Is all that is in scripture necessary for salvation?
So from matthew 25 do we all have to visit those in jail? Was that an example? A commandment? Can we safely ignore it?
Does it matter which scriptures we hold as allegory? which we hold as fixed? Whether we hold them as meaning both?
Take the woman of revelations 12. Mary? Israel? Both? Is it necessary to believe one or more of them.
That we choose to take it literally, so picture mary with the moon at her feet? How is that not biblical.
So the definition of sola scriptura even as "necessary truth" becomes strained, and protestants have disagreed on it.
And so on.
But back to the main points I held. They apply to both solo and sola.
- That If scripture is supreme, or only authority that is a core truth of protestant belief.
If you hold that scripture contains the core truths, why is that of all core truths not there if it were true?
- How can solo or sola scriptura be true for first christians since they certainly not have scripture as we now have it, so the handing on of the faith (paradosis, tradition) was certainly word of mouth early on.
The objective reality is, to determine what the apostles passed on, you have to look at the early church to see how they interpreted it.
And only in that way can you resolve some of the interpretation issues.
We say you cannot take just scripture, and interpret it without information from outside, and history shows with all the divisions in protestantism what happens if you do.
So tradition history, and in our case the magisterium are needed.
But much of the problem that leads to the arguments is interpretation.
I did understand what you meant, rather than said!
And, this is a big subject, so I will try to be brief.
First, it is true, that at least some reject all things outside scripture, so regard it as the only authority not just the supreme authority, without intending to pull punches, notupthome has repeatedly said the writings of fathers as uninspired , irrelevant, not worth reading.
Leaving that opinion aside,
The question is rather more nuanced and blurred, than you make it seem for several distinct reasons
First is interpretation. Most of our differences are interpretation, and it is hard for protestants to deny that their are multiple alternative interpretations , even just their side of the fence, take multiple interpretations of eucharist. Not that scripture is not authority but what does scripture mean?
To resolve the differences needs more than just scripture. Scripture does not self stand.
If then you go outside scripture in order to determine the meaning of it, sola scriptura becomes blurred .
Be it jewish custom, the tradition of the early church or even history that resolves it. Does sola scriptura still hold?
But it is worse than just differing interpretations of accepted things like eucharist,
Whether scripture even covers an issue of doctrine, can be a matter of interpretation too.
Without debating the issue pointing only at the argument of it, the "keys of the kingdom" as interpreted as the
office of steward in a davidic kingdom as per old testament has far reaching consequences, where some use the word keys in more modern context to deny it is an office.
So is the role of papacy there or not? The issue is not sola scriptura but interpretation of that and other scriptures
But beyond the issue of interpretation is also what is "necessary truth"
Assuming we all remove the absurd, that disciples breathed, and scripture does not say so, because it is not necessary doctrine, you are left with alltogether vexed questions.
Take a doctrine that launched 1000 arguments, the honorary title of "mary as queen", disregarding the historical context of that title used in Davidic times as a mother of a king. If we do not believe that it is necessary for salvation to honour her , but we do so anyway, then why do protestants bother to dispute whether it is in scripture or not?
If your regard sola scriptura as only "necessary truth"? Then if we regard it as not necessary, how does it violate sola scriptura? Ignore the example, see the generality. Deciding what is necessary is also a problem.
But that begs a further question.
If we hold that the didache defines in detail what scripture pointed in general, can you ignore the details of the didache, or other early church eg ignatius, so appoint bishops. So is that adding to scripture, or determining the meaning of it?
To another issue and equally vexed question. Is all that is in scripture necessary for salvation?
So from matthew 25 do we all have to visit those in jail? Was that an example? A commandment? Can we safely ignore it?
Does it matter which scriptures we hold as allegory? which we hold as fixed? Whether we hold them as meaning both?
Take the woman of revelations 12. Mary? Israel? Both? Is it necessary to believe one or more of them.
That we choose to take it literally, so picture mary with the moon at her feet? How is that not biblical.
So the definition of sola scriptura even as "necessary truth" becomes strained, and protestants have disagreed on it.
And so on.
But back to the main points I held. They apply to both solo and sola.
- That If scripture is supreme, or only authority that is a core truth of protestant belief.
If you hold that scripture contains the core truths, why is that of all core truths not there if it were true?
- How can solo or sola scriptura be true for first christians since they certainly not have scripture as we now have it, so the handing on of the faith (paradosis, tradition) was certainly word of mouth early on.
The objective reality is, to determine what the apostles passed on, you have to look at the early church to see how they interpreted it.
And only in that way can you resolve some of the interpretation issues.
We say you cannot take just scripture, and interpret it without information from outside, and history shows with all the divisions in protestantism what happens if you do.
So tradition history, and in our case the magisterium are needed.
But much of the problem that leads to the arguments is interpretation.
well they are uninspired, and as far as Scriptural truth is concerned they are just one man's opinion. They are interesting as history but not really relevant in order to interpret Scripture. In many cases they clearly did not understand what Paul was talking about. Neither Clement nor Ignatius show any understanding of what was taught in Romans.
No it is due to the fact that you do not interpret Scripture but make if fit into your heresies. For example there are absolutely no grounds in Scripture for your absurd beliefs about Mary, even though you mistranslate them to indicate what you say..
the Bible is not a catechism. It is a means by which God speaks to His people. But there is no disagreement about what we see as basic doctrine.
What is important is the Lord's Supper and our partaking in it. How we actually interpret how that blessing is applied to us is not so important. The blessing comes to us if we are genuine however we interpret it. No one fully understands it. All we know is that the travesty of transubstantiation is blasphemous and false. It is CONTRARY to Scripture. It creates a graven image.
So we go to the murderers, adulterers and persecutors in order to find out? After all they are experts at shedding blood. We prefer to go to the Holy Spirit Who applies it to each of us in the way that benefits us most. It does self stand in the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. It is because you misunderstand the value of liturgy that you think what you do. You want your church to save you..
But we don't. we compare Scripture with Scripture.
Yes the Scripture holds above all. We do not know the Jewish customs of 1st century AD outside what is in Scripture. The tradition of the early church is based on their own day not on Apostolic days. History does not affect the meaning of Scripture. It is remote from Scripture. The only relevant reliable record we have is Scripture.
LOL as I have shown you the interpretation of the Lord's Supper is secondary.
Of course that is not true. Scripture covers ALL essential doctrine. Not of course Roman Catholic distortions.
So we ask what does Scripture teach? And it teaches that the keys of the Kingly Rule of Heaven are directly connected with binding and loosing. Thus there is no question about it. It has in mind the keys of knowledge spoken of by Luke which enabled the Scribes to bind and loose.
Of course that does not satisfy the Roman Catholic church who want to twist Christ's words so as to fit the ideas of a Roman Catholic church not established until after 700 AD. So they try to introduce some obscure idea they misinterpret from the Old
Testament. That is not exegesis. It is distortion. They try to turn Peter into a politician like the popes from 700 AD onwards.
There is no mention anywhere of anything that suggests the papacy. Even RC historians admit that. The papacy is totally unscriptural. No 'successors' of Peter are ever mentioned in Scripture. It is a myth of the Roman Catholic church.
Necessary truth is what is found in Scripture.
now you are being absurd.
Not Scriptural arguments. Such an idea has absolutely no support in Scripture. It is simply an invention of the later church when after Constantine Christianity and pagan religions became mixed.
A context which is irrelevant. Jesus did not establish a reign on earth, He never called Mary 'mother' and He never allowed her to interfere in His ministry (Cana was before He commenced His ministry) . Indeed any attempts that she made He rejected, disowning her in no uncertain terms (Mark 3.30, 35 ff)
Because it leads people astray, takes glory from Christ, and results in erroneous doctrines and ideas. We honour her as the instrument of God in Bringing Christ into the world. To suggest anything else is to misrepresent her. To suggest that she is sinless is to deny Scriptural truth.
Because it results in a whole host of heresies and blasphemies. And even more so when you claim they are 'necessary', when in fact they are a hindrance and give a totally wrong impression of salvation and of God's working. When it comes to God, stray from Scripture and you stray from truth.
Not so. Scripture tells us what is necessary.
If you want to be foolish enough to think that a book from an obscure church whose activities both contradict what we know about the Apostolic church and about the later church, is to be followed liturgically, you are entitled to do so. BUT ONLY IF YOU CAN SUPPORT WHAT YOU DO FROM SCRIPTURE. Neither the Didache nor Ignatius can determine the meaning of Scripture. All they can tell you is the practise of an obscure church and the ideas of Ignatius. We must then check if that is scriptural.
Not essentially necessary. The only thing essentially necessary is to know the truth about Jesus Christ and His saving work on our behalf. But God clearly saw it as necessary to further our whole salvation or He would not have written it.
It is an indication of how we should behave in compassion and mercy. But the parable had a special meaning. What they did was especially important because they did it to Christ's brothers. It demonstrated their belief in Him. So the message is, he who truly believes in ME will be saved.
In many acses it does not matter, but what does matter is that we do not obtain ideas from them which contravene clear Scriptures.
As to refer it to Mary would go contrary to all Scripture it must clearly be referred to Israel. Yes it is necessary NOT to build on it ideas about Mary.
Because it goes contrary to all Scripture. It is therefore a LIE.
No it is due to the fact that you do not interpret Scripture but make if fit into your heresies. For example there are absolutely no grounds in Scripture for your absurd beliefs about Mary, even though you mistranslate them to indicate what you say..
the Bible is not a catechism. It is a means by which God speaks to His people. But there is no disagreement about what we see as basic doctrine.
What is important is the Lord's Supper and our partaking in it. How we actually interpret how that blessing is applied to us is not so important. The blessing comes to us if we are genuine however we interpret it. No one fully understands it. All we know is that the travesty of transubstantiation is blasphemous and false. It is CONTRARY to Scripture. It creates a graven image.
So we go to the murderers, adulterers and persecutors in order to find out? After all they are experts at shedding blood. We prefer to go to the Holy Spirit Who applies it to each of us in the way that benefits us most. It does self stand in the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. It is because you misunderstand the value of liturgy that you think what you do. You want your church to save you..
But we don't. we compare Scripture with Scripture.
Yes the Scripture holds above all. We do not know the Jewish customs of 1st century AD outside what is in Scripture. The tradition of the early church is based on their own day not on Apostolic days. History does not affect the meaning of Scripture. It is remote from Scripture. The only relevant reliable record we have is Scripture.
LOL as I have shown you the interpretation of the Lord's Supper is secondary.
Of course that is not true. Scripture covers ALL essential doctrine. Not of course Roman Catholic distortions.
So we ask what does Scripture teach? And it teaches that the keys of the Kingly Rule of Heaven are directly connected with binding and loosing. Thus there is no question about it. It has in mind the keys of knowledge spoken of by Luke which enabled the Scribes to bind and loose.
Of course that does not satisfy the Roman Catholic church who want to twist Christ's words so as to fit the ideas of a Roman Catholic church not established until after 700 AD. So they try to introduce some obscure idea they misinterpret from the Old
Testament. That is not exegesis. It is distortion. They try to turn Peter into a politician like the popes from 700 AD onwards.
There is no mention anywhere of anything that suggests the papacy. Even RC historians admit that. The papacy is totally unscriptural. No 'successors' of Peter are ever mentioned in Scripture. It is a myth of the Roman Catholic church.
Necessary truth is what is found in Scripture.
now you are being absurd.
Not Scriptural arguments. Such an idea has absolutely no support in Scripture. It is simply an invention of the later church when after Constantine Christianity and pagan religions became mixed.
A context which is irrelevant. Jesus did not establish a reign on earth, He never called Mary 'mother' and He never allowed her to interfere in His ministry (Cana was before He commenced His ministry) . Indeed any attempts that she made He rejected, disowning her in no uncertain terms (Mark 3.30, 35 ff)
Because it leads people astray, takes glory from Christ, and results in erroneous doctrines and ideas. We honour her as the instrument of God in Bringing Christ into the world. To suggest anything else is to misrepresent her. To suggest that she is sinless is to deny Scriptural truth.
Because it results in a whole host of heresies and blasphemies. And even more so when you claim they are 'necessary', when in fact they are a hindrance and give a totally wrong impression of salvation and of God's working. When it comes to God, stray from Scripture and you stray from truth.
Not so. Scripture tells us what is necessary.
If you want to be foolish enough to think that a book from an obscure church whose activities both contradict what we know about the Apostolic church and about the later church, is to be followed liturgically, you are entitled to do so. BUT ONLY IF YOU CAN SUPPORT WHAT YOU DO FROM SCRIPTURE. Neither the Didache nor Ignatius can determine the meaning of Scripture. All they can tell you is the practise of an obscure church and the ideas of Ignatius. We must then check if that is scriptural.
Not essentially necessary. The only thing essentially necessary is to know the truth about Jesus Christ and His saving work on our behalf. But God clearly saw it as necessary to further our whole salvation or He would not have written it.
It is an indication of how we should behave in compassion and mercy. But the parable had a special meaning. What they did was especially important because they did it to Christ's brothers. It demonstrated their belief in Him. So the message is, he who truly believes in ME will be saved.
In many acses it does not matter, but what does matter is that we do not obtain ideas from them which contravene clear Scriptures.
As to refer it to Mary would go contrary to all Scripture it must clearly be referred to Israel. Yes it is necessary NOT to build on it ideas about Mary.
Because it goes contrary to all Scripture. It is therefore a LIE.