What about the Roman Catholic religion and her daughters?
- Thread starter loveschild
- 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.
Ok I belive those things. Therfore accrding to this argument I AM SAVED. End of story. I also have other beliefs prots would not agree with like beliving the Holy Mysteries (Sacrements) of the Church. Glorifying God through His saints and asking the intercession of the Theotokos. However these differences are 'irrelevent' to your argument because those who 'agree wth those things [you mentioned above] are saved.
I think you know very well what does the Scripture say about the heretics (that you call euphemistically "members of the church that span denominations and visible organizations).
The truth of salvation is kept unaltered, complete and evangelical only by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is not mine. I try to be Her's.
The truth of salvation is kept unaltered, complete and evangelical only by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is not mine. I try to be Her's.
L
I love protestants - unless you accept their protestant definition of church, you are bigoted and elitist.
Sorry, but Christ created one unified church. People left it and want to claim "Oh, well, yeah, we started our own church in 1734 or whatever, but hey, we are part of the church Christ started!"
What the real issue is is that you cannot leave an organization, then claim to be part of that organization anyways, then say that anyone that thinks they are exclusively that organization is 'bigoted and elists'. You don't get to leave the club, make your own club, and still say you are in the club.
Sorry, but Christ created one unified church. People left it and want to claim "Oh, well, yeah, we started our own church in 1734 or whatever, but hey, we are part of the church Christ started!"
What the real issue is is that you cannot leave an organization, then claim to be part of that organization anyways, then say that anyone that thinks they are exclusively that organization is 'bigoted and elists'. You don't get to leave the club, make your own club, and still say you are in the club.
L
Under what act did Constantine force anyone to join a church? Name the Christians groups that existed during the time of Constantine.
Except the original church was the Catholic Church.
In the beginning, there was Catholicism 33 AD.
Between 33-60 AD there emerged Gnostic Christianity. A combination of Platonic philosophy/religion and Christianity.
Coptics left in the 5th Century.
Orthodox in 11th.
Protestantism in the 16th.
People can talk all day about the original church looking something protestant or whatever - but there is none. There are no names, leaders, or any evidence of some non-Catholic Christian Church until the 4th Ecumenical Christian Council... Unless you look at the Gnostics.
L
So, no. Nothing to do with Constantine and you point to another guy that simply affirmed Christian doctrine. Nice.
"Under what act did Constantine force anyone to join a church? Name the Christians groups that existed during the time of Constantine. "
Still waiting for an answer.
Luther said all popes were the anti-Christ and refused to recant that position. You pretty much alienate yourself from any group at that point. That's like saying you were fired unfairly after using your boss's desk as a toilet in front of him.
D
He affirmed it indeed, that's what I said.
What's this? A quiz? (lol) Before the church was institutionalized there were local churches, they all considered themselves CHRISTIANS, not ROMAN CATHOLICS subservant to the bishop of Rome.
Well, he was right, in his own words:
'Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen'
Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherlinks2.html
That was one of the reasons he wanted to reform the RCC in the first place (duh). Fact is he was still throw out for doing so, others were less fortunate:
'...recant or be alienated from the group?' More like 'obey or die!'
L
Actually, that's not what you said. You didn't say any affirmed anything. I don't even know if you are talking about Constantine at this point.
Then why did they call themselves Catholic and in union with the bishop of Rome?
See, the problem is, if there was this 'other' church and then this new church created by Constantine, there would be two groups. But there was no second group, Constantine never made another church.
When you say the Popes are the anti-Christ, you have put yourself outside the Church. The Church does not remove people, people remove themselves.
What is that a picture of? I know it is not the Anabaptists because Luther loved drowning them. Is it the Catholics that Germans princes had burned?
Then why did they call themselves Catholic and in union with the bishop of Rome?
See, the problem is, if there was this 'other' church and then this new church created by Constantine, there would be two groups. But there was no second group, Constantine never made another church.
What is that a picture of? I know it is not the Anabaptists because Luther loved drowning them. Is it the Catholics that Germans princes had burned?
D
What Constatine started, Theodosius I completed, Plain and simple. I can't help it if you dont understand that.
Maybe they called themselves catholics too (where does it say so btw), but they surely didn't call themselves ROMAN catholics. In the beginning the bishop of Rome was just another bishop. Constatine took what was there, institutionliazed and centralized it, in did sense he did create a new church.
That's not the Church, that's a heretical, unbiblical cult. Either way your better off outside it.
It's protestants being burnt in Salzburg, 1528. The Anabaptists who were drowned were mere anarchists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
What can I say about those poor catholics? Fight fire with fire?
Maybe they called themselves catholics too (where does it say so btw), but they surely didn't call themselves ROMAN catholics. In the beginning the bishop of Rome was just another bishop. Constatine took what was there, institutionliazed and centralized it, in did sense he did create a new church.
That's not the Church, that's a heretical, unbiblical cult. Either way your better off outside it.
It's protestants being burnt in Salzburg, 1528. The Anabaptists who were drowned were mere anarchists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
What can I say about those poor catholics? Fight fire with fire?
L
You said one thing, now you cannot defend it. You said they forced people to join the/a church. Neither of them did, actually!
The first record of a reference to Catholicism is in 100. Almost nothing exists as writing from that period accepted the scriptures themselves, but what does exist shows the Catholic Church existed.
Roman Catholicism was coined by Anglicans because they considered themselves Catholics.
No he didn't. There was no other church. What was the other church called? Who were the leaders? Where are the writings? What proclaimations did Constantine make to such?
The epistle of clement of the 2nd Century shows that the bishop of Rome was the head of the Church, as do many subsequent documents.
So the non-heretical, totally biblical thing is for a group to proclaim people as heretics when they have done nothing wrong?
The anabaptists were not anarchists, they did not agree with their protestant crown. If you have not figured it out by now, I'm quite well informed.
The first record of a reference to Catholicism is in 100. Almost nothing exists as writing from that period accepted the scriptures themselves, but what does exist shows the Catholic Church existed.
Roman Catholicism was coined by Anglicans because they considered themselves Catholics.
No he didn't. There was no other church. What was the other church called? Who were the leaders? Where are the writings? What proclaimations did Constantine make to such?
The epistle of clement of the 2nd Century shows that the bishop of Rome was the head of the Church, as do many subsequent documents.
So the non-heretical, totally biblical thing is for a group to proclaim people as heretics when they have done nothing wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
What can I say about those poor catholics? Fight fire with fire?
What can I say about those poor catholics? Fight fire with fire?
D
I have and did. What I said about Constantine maybe was a generalization, but it was he who set in motion what would be completed by Theodosisus I. Get it?
There's catholicism and ROMAN catholicism. In way my church also believes in a catholic church, like the early christians did, as the UNIVERSAL Church of Christ. That's not the same as the church of Rome that claims to have dominion over the whole world.
When you think of a church you think too much of it as an INSTITUTION, (a centralized organization that HAS to be obeyed) which is too expected of a roman catholic. That was not how the church was organized before Constatine though. Then it was more of a local church. Clement may claim whatever he wants, his writings still aren't in the Bible. The true head of the Church Universal is Christ. and THAT's biblical. (Col 1:18) and don't you 'tu es petrus' me.
You called protestants heretics first, to paraphrase what you said: 'if you dont agree with the rules of the 'club' (the RCC) you're not a part of the Church.
There are all kinds of baptists. This particular kind started an anarchistic revolution in Munster that had to be put down by both luterans and catholics. You would have known had you read the wiki page. There is and never has been such a thing as a A protestant crown. [/QUOTE]
Good for you. It doesn't show though.
There's catholicism and ROMAN catholicism. In way my church also believes in a catholic church, like the early christians did, as the UNIVERSAL Church of Christ. That's not the same as the church of Rome that claims to have dominion over the whole world.
When you think of a church you think too much of it as an INSTITUTION, (a centralized organization that HAS to be obeyed) which is too expected of a roman catholic. That was not how the church was organized before Constatine though. Then it was more of a local church. Clement may claim whatever he wants, his writings still aren't in the Bible. The true head of the Church Universal is Christ. and THAT's biblical. (Col 1:18) and don't you 'tu es petrus' me.
You called protestants heretics first, to paraphrase what you said: 'if you dont agree with the rules of the 'club' (the RCC) you're not a part of the Church.
There are all kinds of baptists. This particular kind started an anarchistic revolution in Munster that had to be put down by both luterans and catholics. You would have known had you read the wiki page. There is and never has been such a thing as a A protestant crown. [/QUOTE]
Good for you. It doesn't show though.
R
posts like this one are the real reason there are so many anti roman catholic posts on this forum...and why there is so much anti roman catholic opinion in protestantism in general...
yes christ created a unified church...people later worked to created a hierarchical and clerically driven institution that had little resemblance to the church christ founded...and now they want to claim that their detractors are opposed to 'the church christ started'
the -real- issue is that you cannot assert that a novel organization is synonymous with the original organization to which it bears little resemblance...and then claim that anyone who rejects your novel organization is in fact also rejecting the original organization...
you don't get to try to form a club in an attempt to hijack a movement...and then say that anyone who rejects your club is not part of the movement...
yes christ created a unified church...people later worked to created a hierarchical and clerically driven institution that had little resemblance to the church christ founded...and now they want to claim that their detractors are opposed to 'the church christ started'
the -real- issue is that you cannot assert that a novel organization is synonymous with the original organization to which it bears little resemblance...and then claim that anyone who rejects your novel organization is in fact also rejecting the original organization...
you don't get to try to form a club in an attempt to hijack a movement...and then say that anyone who rejects your club is not part of the movement...