Why do Catholics break the Commandment about Idols?

  • 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.

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
Jesus told us who it is that will come to heaven with him, and it is not those who just believe of him. One has to believe in Jesus, and to believe in Jesus one has to live as Jesus Christ our Lord and God lived. Jesus kept all of God’s Word, and he never sinned.

(1 John 2:5 -6) “Whoever says, 'I know him' without keeping his commandments, is a liar, and truth has no place in him. But anyone who does keep his word, in such a one God's love truly reaches its perfection. This is the proof that we are in God. Whoever claims to remain in him must act as he acted.”

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already: the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.” Jerusalem Bible
Interpreting scripture as you do Jesus will be very lonely in Heaven in that case.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,085
13,099
113
58
Interpreting scripture as you do Jesus will be very lonely in Heaven in that case.
Amen! Those who believe they live a sinless, without fault or defect, flawless perfect life 100% of the time, exactly as Jesus lived are suffering from a terminal case of self-righteousness.
 
May 20, 2016
406
2
0
Interpreting scripture as you do Jesus will be very lonely in Heaven in that case.
Just tell me what makes you believe the Jesus wants people who are of the devil to keep him company? You believe Jesus came as suffered all he did just so he could spend eternity with rebellious people, those who wish to do as they pleased and not as he wanted? Jesus made Satan get out of heaven, because he disobey him, and you want to believe he just want the same kind of people to live with him.

Get real, Jesus told us to pray for his will to be done here on earth as it is in Heaven. God demands his will to be done, and no one who does not do his will, will ever enter the kingdom of heaven.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,726
13,150
113
Interpreting scripture as you do Jesus will be very lonely in Heaven in that case.
sometimes i get the impression this cat thinks it's going to be just him, that's all. he might not even let Jesus in.
 
Jul 8, 2016
209
3
0
As long as it agrees with them.



Most of Roman Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted by apostolic teaching. It is far too late.



That is simply untrue,



That is where you are wrong, They went BACK to the apostolic teaching



It sheds light on how it became added to, changed and manipulated.



LOL



Show me ONE in the apostles teaching.




when it tried to claim what was not true.



nonsense. you have clearly not read what Clement of Alexandria REALLY taught. And you will find NOTHING about the assumption of Mary. To take just two examples.

your teaching is based on Roman Catholic sources which are unreliable
Dear Valiant
Apparently you have nothing to offer biblically or historically

Open up a book on the Church fathers. It will be an eye opener for you. Lots of Protetant pastors have converted because of them. You have nothing to fear.
Gods blessings
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,726
13,150
113
Just tell me what makes you believe the Jesus wants people who are of the devil to keep him company?
what makes you think the people the Father calls and gives to the Son, and that the Son reveals Himself too, cleanses by His word, renews and regenerates through His Spirit, are "children of the Devil" ?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,726
13,150
113
Get real, Jesus told us to pray for his will to be done here on earth as it is in Heaven. God demands his will to be done, and no one who does not do his will, will ever enter the kingdom of heaven.

For my Father's will is that
everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him
shall have eternal life,
and
I will raise them up at the last day.

(John 6:40)

AMEN!!!!

((deal with it, J.L.))
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,726
13,150
113
A leading hyper grace teacher said,
"When I sin, I am blessed, because God doesn't count my sins against me, I have been forgiven of all past, present and future sins."
He gives 1000s of his followers the licence to sin.

the scripture does say "
blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts not His wrongs" and that "with one sacrifice, He has sanctified forever all who are being made holy"

the problem may be that when a man says he is blessed when he has fallen, because the Lord is faithful to forgive him if he confesses, your mind races to "
i have a license to sin" -- instead of remembering what is written in the psalm.

of course i can't -- and i'm not -- justifying each and every person who teaches. obviously there are many false teachers. there have been since the beginning. but how many people go on 'witch-hunts' when they ought to be praising God?
it's the duty of an elder to refute false doctrine - yes, for sure, amen - but how many people go out looking for false doctrine, and do the same things they accuse other people of doing, because they will not rest until they have taken something out of its context and twisted it until it looks like it is heresy -- when in fact it never was?
what if this man was speaking by faith? but carnal flesh interprets it wrongly?

do you think that ever happens?
is that a thing?

does anyone find only demons because demons are the only thing they're looking for?

i hope that's not me. i'll strive not to let myself become that, without taking off the girdle of truth.
 

gotime

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2011
3,537
88
48
Exodus 20:3-5
[SUP]3 [/SUP]“You shall have no other gods before Me.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]You shall not worship them or serve them.

Statues and Pictures of Mary are Idols because Catholics do pray to them.

So how can they Justify their Praying to Mary which God has said we are not to do?
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
 
Jul 8, 2016
209
3
0
As long as it agrees with them.



Most of Roman Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted by apostolic teaching. It is far too late.



That is simply untrue,



That is where you are wrong, They went BACK to the apostolic teaching



It sheds light on how it became added to, changed and manipulated.



LOL



Show me ONE in the apostles teaching.




when it tried to claim what was not true.



nonsense. you have clearly not read what Clement of Alexandria REALLY taught. And you will find NOTHING about the assumption of Mary. To take just two examples.

your teaching is based on Roman Catholic sources which are unreliable
Dear Valiant,
citing the Church Fathers on Catholic doctrine is about the easiest thing a Catholic can do. Whether it is about a particular.

doctrine or a Eucharistic prayer or about the Church Councils on the forming on the canon of Sacred Scripture.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
CHRIST, THE EDUCATOR OF LITTLE ONES

42) O mystic wonder! The Father of all is one, the Word who belongs to all is one, the Holy Spirit is one and the same for all. And one alone, too, is the virgin Mother. I like to call her the Church. She alone, although a mother, had no milk because she alone never became a wife. She is at once virgin and mother: as virgin, undefiled; as mother, full of love. Calling her children about her, she nourishes them with milk that is holy: the Infant Word. That is why she has no milk, because this Son of hers, beautiful and all hers, the Body of Christ, is milk. The new people she fosters on the Word, for He Himself begot them in throes of His flesh and wrapped them in the swaddling clothes of His precious blood. What a holy begetting! What holy swaddling clothes! The Word is everything to His little ones, both father and mother, educator and nurse. ‘Eat My flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My blood.’ He is Himself the nourishment that He gives. He delivers up His own flesh and pours out His own blood. There is nothing lacking His children, that they may grow. (43) What a mysterious paradox! He bids us put off the former mortality of the flesh and, with it, the former nourishment, and receive instead this other new life of Christ, to find place in ourselves for Him as far as we can, and to enshrine the Saviour in our hearts that we may be rid of the passions of the flesh.
 
Jul 8, 2016
209
3
0
As long as it agrees with them.



Most of Roman Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted by apostolic teaching. It is far too late.



That is simply untrue,



That is where you are wrong, They went BACK to the apostolic teaching



It sheds light on how it became added to, changed and manipulated.



LOL



Show me ONE in the apostles teaching.




when it tried to claim what was not true.



nonsense. you have clearly not read what Clement of Alexandria REALLY taught. And you will find NOTHING about the assumption of Mary. To take just two examples.

your teaching is based on Roman Catholic sources which are unreliable

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
Pope Clement I

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).
"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

Tertullian

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).
"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).
"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).
"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Jerome

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
 
Jul 8, 2016
209
3
0
As long as it agrees with them.



Most of Roman Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted by apostolic teaching. It is far too late.



That is simply untrue,



That is where you are wrong, They went BACK to the apostolic teaching



It sheds light on how it became added to, changed and manipulated.



LOL



Show me ONE in the apostles teaching.




when it tried to claim what was not true.



nonsense. you have clearly not read what Clement of Alexandria REALLY taught. And you will find NOTHING about the assumption of Mary. To take just two examples.

your teaching is based on Roman Catholic sources which are unreliable
INFANT BAPTISM
Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
 
Jul 8, 2016
209
3
0
As long as it agrees with them.



Most of Roman Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted by apostolic teaching. It is far too late.



That is simply untrue,



That is where you are wrong, They went BACK to the apostolic teaching



It sheds light on how it became added to, changed and manipulated.



LOL



Show me ONE in the apostles teaching.




when it tried to claim what was not true.



nonsense. you have clearly not read what Clement of Alexandria REALLY taught. And you will find NOTHING about the assumption of Mary. To take just two examples.

your teaching is based on Roman Catholic sources which are unreliable
Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
 
Jul 8, 2016
209
3
0
As long as it agrees with them.



Most of Roman Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted by apostolic teaching. It is far too late.



That is simply untrue,



That is where you are wrong, They went BACK to the apostolic teaching



It sheds light on how it became added to, changed and manipulated.



LOL



Show me ONE in the apostles teaching.




when it tried to claim what was not true.



nonsense. you have clearly not read what Clement of Alexandria REALLY taught. And you will find NOTHING about the assumption of Mary. To take just two examples.

your teaching is based on Roman Catholic sources which are unreliable
St Peters successors

Irenaeus


"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
 
May 26, 2016
828
7
0

the scripture does say "
blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts not His wrongs" and that "with one sacrifice, He has sanctified forever all who are being made holy"

the problem may be that when a man says he is blessed when he has fallen, because the Lord is faithful to forgive him if he confesses, your mind races to "
i have a license to sin" -- instead of remembering what is written in the psalm.

of course i can't -- and i'm not -- justifying each and every person who teaches. obviously there are many false teachers. there have been since the beginning. but how many people go on 'witch-hunts' when they ought to be praising God?
it's the duty of an elder to refute false doctrine - yes, for sure, amen - but how many people go out looking for false doctrine, and do the same things they accuse other people of doing, because they will not rest until they have taken something out of its context and twisted it until it looks like it is heresy -- when in fact it never was?
what if this man was speaking by faith? but carnal flesh interprets it wrongly?

do you think that ever happens?
is that a thing?

does anyone find only demons because demons are the only thing they're looking for?

i hope that's not me. i'll strive not to let myself become that, without taking off the girdle of truth.


Blessed is the one who repents, then God doesn't count the sins against them.
Remission is by repentance Lk 24 : 47. Acts 2 : 38. 1 Jn 1 : 9.

What he should have said, was,"When I sin AND CONFESS AND REPENT I am blessed, because God isn't counting my sins against me ".

So you can see how the false grace teachers deceive people.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,726
13,150
113
Blessed is the one who repents, then God doesn't count the sins against them.
Remission is by repentance Lk 24 : 47. Acts 2 : 38. 1 Jn 1 : 9.

What he should have said, was,"When I sin AND CONFESS AND REPENT I am blessed, because God isn't counting my sins against me ".

So you can see how the false grace teachers deceive people.

the fact that he said he sinned is a kind of confession, is it not? otherwise how would he call it "sin" ?
do i know that he doesn't teach repentance as well? that he doesn't also preach that we should obediently do the things that our new nature desires, and put away the things the old nature lusts after?

so i see that maybe he could have phrased something better -- if his purpose was to present a complete doctrine in 15 words, and this was the only thing he said, not an out-of-context snippet.
and i see that some people, if they life & die by the rules of twitter & bumper stickers & billboards, with an attention span that is a stretch to go beyond 30 words, may be easily deceived.

but there just isn't enough info here to call someone a false teacher. maybe he is preaching no need to live righteously, and no need to repent? i don't know. maybe he is also saying these things, but that's not being quoted to me.
we could lift just a few words out of many parts of the Bible, and ignoring what else is said, make it sound as if all kinds of wrong doctrine is taught.

"
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me" said Jesus. whoah! works righteousness!

see? no context. Jesus isn't presenting a complete theology in 10 words or less. He said much more than this. but if i wanted to accuse Him of preaching works, or to accuse Him of preaching the Law of Moses, or i wanted to accuse Him of preaching humanism, or of gnosticism, or universal salvation, or universal condemnation, or even homosexuality or atheism -- i could search diligently for bits of things to quote only in part, and ignore everything else, and present them & interpret them in a way that makes it sound like He says whatever it is i had already determined in my heart to make Him say. i could do the same thing with Paul, or any preacher who i had a lot of text to sift through.

i'm not saying you do this on purpose -- tho i think some people sure do, purposefully
but i think it happens without even thinking about it, if we go in to things already having judged them.
not saying there isn't such a thing as a "false teaching of grace" either.
just that i don't always hear enough to make that kind of condemnation.


 
Last edited:
May 20, 2016
406
2
0
Blessed is the one who repents, then God doesn't count the sins against them.
Remission is by repentance Lk 24 : 47. Acts 2 : 38. 1 Jn 1 : 9.

What he should have said, was,"When I sin AND CONFESS AND REPENT I am blessed, because God isn't counting my sins against me ".


.
Yes preachers who have been more interested in their financial wellbeing than their spiritual have been giving the message you posted for many years. It is a message the people want to hear.

Such people believe Jesus came, and died the way he did, just so he could spend eternity with rebellious disobedient people, who spent their time on earth doing their own will and not God’s Will.

Jesus told us how to pray, and he said to pray for his Will to be done here on earth and it is in heaven. Satan did not do God’s Will and he is going to Hell.
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,278
23
0
The problem is DeaconMike all your proof is from men, not from God. Show us where in Scriptures only where God says we receive Salvation by Baptism!

Ephesians 2:8,9
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, [SUP]9 [/SUP]not of works, lest anyone should boast.

We receive Salvation by Grace from God, not by Baptism.

So why DeaconMike are you elevating the teachings of Satan above God? Why do you see nothing wrong with teachings the doctrines of Satan? Its Satan who says we receive Salvation by Baptism. Its the Catholics who repeat what Satan say by declaring Salvation is received by Baptism.

Therefore all the Catholics who were Baptized as Babies will never enter into Heaven. Repent DeaconMike, go to a True Christian Church, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and be Baptized by full Immersion!

Otherwise you will lose out on being in Paradise with us True Children of God.
 
May 20, 2016
406
2
0
The problem is DeaconMike all your proof is from men, not from God. Show us where in Scriptures only where God says we receive Salvation by Baptism!

Ephesians 2:8,9
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, [SUP]9 [/SUP]not of works, lest anyone should boast.

We receive Salvation by Grace from God, not by Baptism.

So why DeaconMike are you elevating the teachings of Satan above God? Why do you see nothing wrong with teachings the doctrines of Satan? Its Satan who says we receive Salvation by Baptism. Its the Catholics who repeat what Satan say by declaring Salvation is received by Baptism.

Therefore all the Catholics who were Baptized as Babies will never enter into Heaven. Repent DeaconMike, go to a True Christian Church, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and be Baptized by full Immersion!

Otherwise you will lose out on being in Paradise with us True Children of God.
Ken, you may receive salvation the way you believe, but you will never enter the kingdom of heaven unless you keep God’s Word.

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already: the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.” Jerusalem Bible

(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”