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.
No --- it is love speech --- you just do not realize it yet... 
What historical sources do you consider reliable? Don't say 'the Catholic Church'. The Vatican is one of the most unreliable - and least trustworthy - sources of history there is in the world today. Why? Because they have "changed history" by re-writing documents / etc. in order to suit their purposes. If you are not willing to go outside of the Catholic realm for information - in order to find the truth -- you never will... ( "in this life"; on Judgment Day, I am quite sure that you will understand perfectly - as will we all... )
I don't think so. You are being "politically correct" about it. This description indicates the intent to disrupt fellowship or make offenses. I have no such purpose. On the contrary, better fellowship may be had among those who understand the truth in love and agree. I am only trying to help those who truly want to know the truth about the history of the Catholic Church to open their eyes and see it.
I am not angry. I am not trying to 'get a rise' out of anyone. I am not trying to belittle or condemn any Catholic "lay" person. ( I believe that the Catholic hierarchy - the controlling 'upper-echelon' of the organization - is full of pure evil. However, the "lay" person membership - no doubt to a large degree - is simply deceived. )
If you are ever able to open your eyes and see the truth about the Catholic Church, you will understand why I say these things.
For just a moment, assume that I am correct in the things I have stated. Would you not want to know the real truth?
Well -- I am telling you the real truth -- the truth you need to be able to see. The rest is up to you.
You can swallow your pride and take a good long hard look at the true reality in which we live -- or, you can continue to believe what you have been 'fed'... ( In 'The Matrix' terms -- "you can take the red pill or the blue one; the choice is yours"... )
Always an option:
"We can certainly agree to disagree agreeably."
Not persecution. Rather, a wake-up call.
When you make a statement - in conversation, in public - do you immediately follow it with the long list of intricate details of every thought and idea that lent itself to forming the framework of the supposition that supports what you just stated?
This is not a formal literary documentary environment. It is a conversational exchange of ideas.
Yes - people should, at times, document the source of vitally important findings from their research of a subject being discussed -- so that others can "follow up"... However, there is no requirement for every statement made by any individual in any post to be "proofed" in the same post. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide the merit they give to the information in someone's post.
What historical sources do you consider reliable? Don't say 'the Catholic Church'.
The Vatican is one of the most unreliable - and least trustworthy - sources of history there is in the world today. Why? Because they have "changed history" by re-writing documents / etc. in order to suit their purposes. If you are not willing to go outside of the Catholic realm for information - in order to find the truth -- you never will... ( "in this life"; on Judgment Day, I am quite sure that you will understand perfectly - as will we all... )I don't think so. You are being "politically correct" about it. This description indicates the intent to disrupt fellowship or make offenses. I have no such purpose. On the contrary, better fellowship may be had among those who understand the truth in love and agree. I am only trying to help those who truly want to know the truth about the history of the Catholic Church to open their eyes and see it.
I am not angry. I am not trying to 'get a rise' out of anyone. I am not trying to belittle or condemn any Catholic "lay" person. ( I believe that the Catholic hierarchy - the controlling 'upper-echelon' of the organization - is full of pure evil. However, the "lay" person membership - no doubt to a large degree - is simply deceived. )
If you are ever able to open your eyes and see the truth about the Catholic Church, you will understand why I say these things.
For just a moment, assume that I am correct in the things I have stated. Would you not want to know the real truth?
Well -- I am telling you the real truth -- the truth you need to be able to see. The rest is up to you.
You can swallow your pride and take a good long hard look at the true reality in which we live -- or, you can continue to believe what you have been 'fed'... ( In 'The Matrix' terms -- "you can take the red pill or the blue one; the choice is yours"... )
Always an option:
"We can certainly agree to disagree agreeably."
Not persecution. Rather, a wake-up call.
When you make a statement - in conversation, in public - do you immediately follow it with the long list of intricate details of every thought and idea that lent itself to forming the framework of the supposition that supports what you just stated?
This is not a formal literary documentary environment. It is a conversational exchange of ideas.
Yes - people should, at times, document the source of vitally important findings from their research of a subject being discussed -- so that others can "follow up"... However, there is no requirement for every statement made by any individual in any post to be "proofed" in the same post. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide the merit they give to the information in someone's post.
T
I disagree. I believe that practices such as adultery and thievery are grave sins which may lead even a self-professed Christian to Hell, because this self-professed Christian will then be manifesting the fruits of sin/flesh, and will reap what he/she sows.
I'm not saying that babies are not tainted with sin. I'm saying that they cannot commit sin, in reply to Santuzza's words in post #1719.
[HR][/HR]
I wouldn't take this bible verse at face value. It's simply stressing the shamefulness of mankind in Adam and Eve's initial rebellion, the lowliness of being naturally separated from the beatific vision.
Hmm.. this bible verse can also refer to Eve's sin; her and her daughters will give birth in pain.
If we would take this bible verse literally, then even infants can fall into Hell.
I'm sure your church is very successful, a source of grace and truths leading to salvation, but I will rephrase my question. How did the early Church start from scratch with no Bible as we know it for the first 300 years?
Which begs another question: How did we get the Bible?
Which leads to another question: Who had the authority to put together 27 inspired books of the New Testament (lets stick to the NT to avoid digression) when the NT has no inspired table of contents?
This is the "starting from scratch" that I was referring to. Hint: you have to go outside the Bible to answer the questions.
Which begs another question: How did we get the Bible?
Which leads to another question: Who had the authority to put together 27 inspired books of the New Testament (lets stick to the NT to avoid digression) when the NT has no inspired table of contents?
This is the "starting from scratch" that I was referring to. Hint: you have to go outside the Bible to answer the questions.
Evade the questions or invent some novel "histories". That seems to be the pattern in here.
1 John 5:16-17 16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and jGod1 will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. kThere is sin that leads to death; lI do not say that one should pray for that. 17 mAll wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.
There is a biblical distinction between venial and mortal sin.
Stealing a pen from work does not have "uniform consequences" as stealing food from a hungry family. you talk about "errors of Rome"??????
1 John 5:16-17 16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and jGod1 will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. kThere is sin that leads to death; lI do not say that one should pray for that. 17 mAll wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.
There is a biblical distinction between venial and mortal sin.
Stealing a pen from work does not have "uniform consequences" as stealing food from a hungry family. you talk about "errors of Rome"??????
that's about as direct as you can get. The apostles and disciples taught or reasoned from the OT scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah promised to them. No better history book than the bible itself.
This epistle is written to believers not to the unsaved. A believer can sin a sin that is not unto death because he is not condemned by his sin. If we compare the scripture in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 we see a believer that is engaged in gross sin. Paul says to pray that he flesh be delivered to Satan for destruction. A sin unto death physical. The believer cannot die again spiritually because he is born again unto eternal life.
There are always consequences for sin. To the unbeliever the consequence is death first physical then eternal in the lake of fire. For the believer sin first breaks fellowship with the Lord then leads to physical death as a consequence of non repentance.
Back to Romans 3 all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God. All men must be born again or they perish forever in the lake of fire. It does not matter how great or how small the sin all sin results in condemnation of the unsaved person. God has concluded all men in unbelief that He might have mercy on all.
How will you atone for your sin?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
This epistle is written to believers not to the unsaved. A believer can sin a sin that is not unto death because he is not condemned by his sin. If we compare the scripture in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 we see a believer that is engaged in gross sin. Paul says to pray that he flesh be delivered to Satan for destruction. A sin unto death physical. The believer cannot die again spiritually because he is born again unto eternal life.
There are always consequences for sin. To the unbeliever the consequence is death first physical then eternal in the lake of fire. For the believer sin first breaks fellowship with the Lord then leads to physical death as a consequence of non repentance.
Back to Romans 3 all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God. All men must be born again or they perish forever in the lake of fire. It does not matter how great or how small the sin all sin results in condemnation of the unsaved person. God has concluded all men in unbelief that He might have mercy on all.
How will you atone for your sin?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Roger,
Where in 1 John does it say John is writing to unbelievers?
1 John 5:16-17 demolishes your opinion that all sin has the same consequences. Everybody sins every day, in thought, word or deed. But those minor sins do not separate us from God for eternity. Serious or mortal sins do. 1 John 5:16-17 is about two different kinds of sins, which you can't seem to accept.
How do I atone for my sins?
The same as you do.
If I steal something, I have to give it back or my repentance means nothing.
If I offend someone, I have to try to make amends, or my repentance means nothing.
If my character is defected, I have to ask God for help...and so on.
If taking action is impossible, God loves us enough to accept our prayers as acceptable contrition.
But minor or venial sins, what John is talking about, can lead to mortal sins if not put in check.
1 John 5:16-17 doesn't sit well with your Calvinist view of sin so you ignore it. That means you are no position to correct anyone else.
Where in 1 John does it say John is writing to unbelievers?
1 John 5:16-17 demolishes your opinion that all sin has the same consequences. Everybody sins every day, in thought, word or deed. But those minor sins do not separate us from God for eternity. Serious or mortal sins do. 1 John 5:16-17 is about two different kinds of sins, which you can't seem to accept.
How do I atone for my sins?
The same as you do.
If I steal something, I have to give it back or my repentance means nothing.
If I offend someone, I have to try to make amends, or my repentance means nothing.
If my character is defected, I have to ask God for help...and so on.
If taking action is impossible, God loves us enough to accept our prayers as acceptable contrition.
But minor or venial sins, what John is talking about, can lead to mortal sins if not put in check.
1 John 5:16-17 doesn't sit well with your Calvinist view of sin so you ignore it. That means you are no position to correct anyone else.
Last edited:
I said that 1 John is written to believers NOT unbelievers. Do you read or assume what is said?
All sin is equal in Gods eyes. God does not tolerate any sin.
For the unbeliever all sin results in eternal death. The wages of sin is death. Romans 6
For the believer sin only interferes with fellowship and rewards. There is no longer any condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8
You love to create straw men that you can slay with your couched phrases but the truth is far more resilient.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
All sin is equal in Gods eyes. God does not tolerate any sin.
For the unbeliever all sin results in eternal death. The wages of sin is death. Romans 6
For the believer sin only interferes with fellowship and rewards. There is no longer any condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8
You love to create straw men that you can slay with your couched phrases but the truth is far more resilient.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
E
Amen! To what Roger said....it is all true and NOT because Roger said it BUT because God did in His Holy Word.
I thank Roger for NOT only standing up for TRUTH, as hard as it is to swallow sometimes, BUT that he also shows where it is written in God's Word...so ALL may read and come to BELIEVE.
In Service to Him,
eneri
I thank Roger for NOT only standing up for TRUTH, as hard as it is to swallow sometimes, BUT that he also shows where it is written in God's Word...so ALL may read and come to BELIEVE.
In Service to Him,
eneri