Catholic Heresy (for the record)

KenAllan · Apr 27, 2015

There is a real easy way to determine if a person is a True Christian or if a person is not a True Christian.

1 Corinthians 2:10-14
[SUP]10 [/SUP] But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If a person receives all the Truth in the Bible and teaches the Truth in the Bible that person is a True Christian and is a Child of God.

If a person teaches the foolish things of the World and not the Truth in the Bible that person is a natural man and cannot understand the Spiritual things from God.

Read what people are saying here on this chat room. Are they teaching what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible or are they teaching what the World says?

Only those who have received the Holy Spirit can understand what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible. Compare what they say with what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible before you accept anything they say as the Truth.

To teach there is Truths outside of the Holy Spirit is teaching that God is NOT Omniscient.

Omniscient- God knows everything and His knowledge is complete. This is called His omniscience. Isaiah said that Israel had not seen everything that God had planned (Isaiah 40:28). Job said that God had all knowledge (Job 37:16). The psalmist said that God’s understanding was infinite (Psalm 147:5). The New Testament also claims God’s omniscience in 1 John 3:20 and Romans 11:33.

For anyone to say there are Truths outside of God shows they really do not believe in God. For anyone to teach what the World says as Truths really do not believe in God.

The mark of a True Christian is one who walks with Jesus Christ and has the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We all need to turn away from what Satan teaches. We all need to accept everything in the Bible as absolute truth from God!

Elin · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

Oh, my dear one, how many times does the word of God have to state it before it is true?

If the "ancient languges" ("masquerading as angels of light") tell you the word of God does not present Gehenna (hell) as a reality, you are being sorely deceived.

Elin · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

Oh, dear. . .

You receive it by faith and humble trust, not by resolve of human bravery.

MikeHenderson · Apr 27, 2015

I agree with Elin and kenAllen.

If it is not in the Bible its not the Truth from God.

Ancient language? All languages used by God to write the Bible everybody KNOWS exactly what they say. To say only you can understand them proves you are not a Child of God but an imposter trying to deceive the very elect.

1 Corinthians 3:18-21
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";
[SUP]20 [/SUP] and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."
[SUP]21 [/SUP] Therefore let no one boast in men.

Ephesians 5:1-7
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Therefore be imitators of God as dear children.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
[SUP]4 [/SUP] neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Therefore do not be partakers with them.

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

errrrmmm lets see who followed who?

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).

Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).

Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).

Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),

Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), "Liberian Catal."- "Liber. Pont."].

Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). [/FONT]

Tough decision !!!!

Lets consult a Roman Catholic author -

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif](Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).[/FONT]

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

well as I have just shown your own historian disagrees with Augustine and you.

yes but not Apostolic succession. we all believe people succeeded each other.

so two generations had passed. However we agree with Ignatius about observing the Lord's Supper and do not believe that he taught the real presence. So we have no problem with Ignatius. He went a little over the top about bishops. But he was young and overexcited..

I would hardly call that apostasy. I don't see any mention of Mary veneration, or saints, or auricular confession, or celibate priests, or child molesters, or bowing down to graven images.

you have such funny ideas. we don't despise them. we see them as good men trying their best without all the facilities that we have and without having a Bible to consult daily

Its people like you who have no excuse!!!!

Jimbone · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

I don't think that's right. Pride is a sin and even with Jesus He didn't say "This is my son I'm proud of", He said "This is my Son with who I am well pleased", I don't think God can even have pride.

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

valiant said:

As we already know you will dig anything anywhere to try to support failing viewpoints and ignore the evidenceagainst you.

Let us analyze that a little more...
It says "the new testament provides no basis" well there is a thing, because we already know sola scriptura is logically historically and biblically false, the church passed on by tradition, so why should it have a basis other than "peter the rock" given the "keys of the kingdom" and "power to bind" ? That is enough. Wherever Peter was at the time, so too was authority, only later did he come to Rome.

Neither though does the new testament mention bishops needed for valid sacraments but the early fathers do, so we can find out what apostles thought from such as irenaus, ignatius etc

As to your author. He did NOT speak for the catholic church , indeed he spoke against those within it!! He was a fudger trying to find an ecumenistic path to bridge gaps between opposing lutherans.

And the corker...

What you fail to say of course, or perhaps you do not even know, is he STILL CONCLUDES!!! the monarchical episcopacy was correct docrine regardless, inspired with the spirit, verifiable from 2nd century on and backs it with theological arguments rather than historical. That it was inspired as aposttolic succession! That was his conclusion So other than a dissenting viewpoint question a few decades, he still concludes what augustine and others do! that there was an inspired line down to the first.

And from then on such as Augustine echo it.

None speak out against a clearly established papacy.
This is what Augustine said. Clear enough for you?

I will keep repeating it until you acknowledge that is indeed what they believed!

Letter of Augustine to Generosus [400 A.D.] on Apostolic Succession

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius. In order of succession not a Donatist bishop is to be found

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

valiant said:

Was not addressed to you. Let the conversation continue.
We know you have an eccentric view, your proved it with idiocy about petra/petros.
You are welcome to it. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with truth.

And stop intervening in other conversations.

I will keep repeating Augustinses view on succession, until you acknowledge that is what he thought. However much you may disagree with him.

Letter of Augustine to Generosus [400 A.D.] on Apostolic Succession

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius. In order of succession not a Donatist bishop is to be found

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

LOL are all your authors fudgers? here's another

The continuity between Pope and Apostle rests on traditions which stretch back almost to the very beginning of the written records of Christianity. It was already well established by the year AD 180, when the early Christian writer Irenaeus of Lyons invoked it in defence of orthodox Christianity. The Church of Rome was for him the 'great and illustrious Church' to which, 'on account of its commanding position, every church, that is the faithful everywhere, must resort'. Irenaeus thought that the Church had been 'founded and organised at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,' and that its faith had been reliably passed down to posterity by an unbroken succession of bishops, the first of them chosen and consecrated by the Apostles themselves. He named the bishops who had succeeded the Apostles, in the process providing us with the earliest surviving list of the popes--Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, and so on down to Irenaeus' contemporary and friend Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome from AD 174 to 189.
All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus' account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the 'trophies' of the Apostles, their tombs, or cenotaphs, Peter's on the Vatican Hill, and Paul's on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter's life and death in Rome--his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision of Christ (the 'Quo Vadis' legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus in the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church--Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve...Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter's death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single 'successor'. There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament (Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6).

well of course he does LOL HE HAS TO Big Daddy says so!!!!!

what a surprise. but he debunks Augustine's so called line of bishops. He, and the author above, say that the first three bishops were not sole bishops of Rome at all. Augustine, who disagreed in his order with Irenaeus, claimed they were. SO ON THAT POINT AUGUSTINE'S LIST IS CLEARLY NOT RELIABLE. There WAS NO SUCCESSION.

No it is far from clear. He says nothing about a papacy. Indeed the papacy had not been established before he died.

carry on wasting your breath. let everyone see what a fool you are.

This is your first lie. It says nothing about apostolic succession.

what was he doing? intending to compare a Donatist list of bishops with a Roman list. Furthermore he declares that Peter represents the church which is built on the Rock. How then can he be the Rock itself?

But we have seen above that this is grossly in error. Augustine disagrees with those who have gone before him. These were not bishops of Rome, nor did they succeed each other. So much for Apostolic succession.

named simply to show that not all bishops were Donatists . Nothing to do with Apostolic succession.

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

valiant said:

Valiant.

You really do miss the point. Having had BILLIONS of catholics in the world MILLIONS of priests and theologians, the surprise is you can only find one or two cuckoos to support your unholy cause, against the views of RCC.

And Considering how many centuries passed with the office of papacy well defined , the surprise is you cannot find one early church father declaring the very existence of the office of papacy heretical, when they speak of all manner of heresies elsewhere, and the papacy from early times made no secret of why it thought it had power, as augustine echos so well.

Augustine said this. Which is what the church believed.

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius. In order of succession not a Donatist bishop is to be found

With all that garbage about trying to split haires on petra/ petros which even denied the language they all used! or correct idiom and grammar! You lost all credibility then. Credibility is like virginity. You can only lose intellectual honesty once, and you did right there.

You are an eccentric Sir. Who cares nothing at all for the truth, and all for his own opinions, which you superimpose on all that you read. On the other hand I am a scientist. I do not care two hoots for your kind of emotive attachment, that you "feel" sola scriptura should be right, or that Jesus should be the rock. Good for you. Long you may believe them both.

Sad they are completely false. Sola scriptura is logically impossible , so out it goes. Jesus says the rock is Peter, given the well defined office of keys. I read what is actually there!!! And jesus and numerous ECF say it is flesh in the eucharist. So however astounding that is, I take them at their word. And the word of Jesus at capernaum. I dont play games like you do. Every time you try to twist it, you accuse Jesus of being a bad evangelist for not making himself clear. But he was very clear on Peter the rock!

Who is your bishop by the way, and what is his line back to the apostles to conductconduct valid baptism and eucharist as Ignatius said?

Cloud9 · Apr 27, 2015

Too many closed minds in this thread.

I told you all to seek and as far as I can tell not one,of you did.

So I am done with this thread.

Atheists call theists dogmatic all the time and I never believed it before but now I do.

Dogma is important I believe for spiritual birth.

But hell doctrine does nothing to increase the chance of spiritual birth.

You have to trust somebody to receive your spiritual seed just like in a natural pregnancy.

You guys have succeeded in your close mindedness in making God look like a rapist that forces people into spiritual birth by upholding the hell doctrine. You have depicted Him as Molech.

I told you to check....and you were all too lazy to do it. Supremely confident in your intellectual pride.

May God have mercy on your hard hearted, stubborn souls.

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

I think you should recognise the distinction.

On this thread catholics are attacked. Nobody is obliged to do it, but they do it none the less, and they do it with all kinds of myth and distortion.

On this thread ,catholics would say little or nothing, if their position was presented honestly as it appears in the catechism
But it is not, not even in the OP. So catholics reply to define their position, when the attacks are repeated again and again so are the replies.

It takes two an attacker and a defender to make a fight. But you cannot blame the defender for the fact of the fight.

Should we leave the fight alone? From my personal point of view or standing I COULD NOT CARE LESS what people think of me or what I believe. They can call me any names they like

But I do care that those questioning catholic belief are given a false view of it by others who attack it on myth, so that they either avoid it , when they might have approached it, or indeed start repeating the myths. So that is why I reply.

.

mwc68 · Apr 27, 2015

KenAllan said:

There is a real easy way to determine if a person is a True Christian or if a person is not a True Christian.

1 Corinthians 2:10-14
[SUP]10 [/SUP] But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If a person receives all the Truth in the Bible and teaches the Truth in the Bible that person is a True Christian and is a Child of God.

If a person teaches the foolish things of the World and not the Truth in the Bible that person is a natural man and cannot understand the Spiritual things from God.

Read what people are saying here on this chat room. Are they teaching what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible or are they teaching what the World says?

Only those who have received the Holy Spirit can understand what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible. Compare what they say with what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible before you accept anything they say as the Truth.

To teach there is Truths outside of the Holy Spirit is teaching that God is NOT Omniscient.

Omniscient- God knows everything and His knowledge is complete. This is called His omniscience. Isaiah said that Israel had not seen everything that God had planned (Isaiah 40:28). Job said that God had all knowledge (Job 37:16). The psalmist said that God’s understanding was infinite (Psalm 147:5). The New Testament also claims God’s omniscience in 1 John 3:20 and Romans 11:33.

For anyone to say there are Truths outside of God shows they really do not believe in God. For anyone to teach what the World says as Truths really do not believe in God.

The mark of a True Christian is one who walks with Jesus Christ and has the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We all need to turn away from what Satan teaches. We all need to accept everything in the Bible as absolute tr

I did not know you were God. with the ability. to look into someone's. heart

Jeff_56 · Apr 27, 2015

yahweh has always seen the heresy of ALL the popes/ ALL the rcc doctrines and practices,

and the deception of billions of people and the whores fornication with the leaders of all the nations .....

the heresy of the rcc is no secret to the followers of yahshua(JESUS)....

the rcc has always been opposed to the truth. opposed to scripture. and has
always MURDERED the Jews and the believing gentiles who wouldn't bow down to the antichrist pope.

always.

Jeff_56 · Apr 27, 2015

mwc68 said:

yet you call the antichrist pope god.... go figure....

the bible clearly exposes you and all the rcc. it only takes the truth a little child can see.....

you can remain self-deceived until you die if you want to. not even yahweh the creator will make you change your mind before then... but he does offer the chance for life to those who repent while there is
still time; instead of certain damnation/judgment/ because of obvious heresy.

mwc68 · Apr 27, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

apparently you just want to rcc bash. once again, i don't hold the pope over God anymore than you do your so-called. preacher, if you even go to church

Cloud9 · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

I believe a Catholic can be saved because God can look on a heart and tell which hearts are right with him.

I know a lot of Catholic dogma is wrong but people don't trust themselves to dogma.

They trust themselves to Jesus.

Catholicism and Protestantism are both wrong on hell doctrine and if you think this doesn't aggravate the spiritual blindness of unbelievers you are mistaken.

We draw our mental picture of God from the scriptures. We have no physical picture so doctrine is very important in constructing that mental picture.

God doesn't change His mind like men do. We know men do we have more than 2,000 Christian sects. I consider myself a Restorationist which is similar to a Universalist but there are some fine doctrinal differences.

God is inclusive...But with doctrine disputes His people claiming to be His followers have made Him exclusive.

I am so tired of the ignorance. It has affected my perception of Christians...we look like liars to unbelievers on the mercy and grace of God.....we have increased their reprobation by our laziness.

So I am not going to argue with Catholics or Protestansts....I am going to do a Luther and tack the 95 theses up in a very public place.

The best doctrinal picture of God is the universal/Restorationist picture so that is the truth....the others are lies....

Catholics have depicted an angry God and so have Protestants....so it is no wonder that unbelievers recoil...

They see the contradiction and can't understand why if Christ paid the penalty for sin that God is still so angry with them and standing over them with a threatening posture.

Hell doctrine is the biggest lie of all time...and I am going to be Martin Luther....come hell or high water....

I've been watching zealots from all sides for years on religious doctrinal questions and zealots are stupid and lazy.

Zeal is higher than knowledge but zeal with knowledge is better so I better get out of cyber space and get my one man band wagon to change the world on the road.

Because sometimes the best man for a really big job is a woman.

Grow some balls, guys....cya!

Jackson123 · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

I think you should recognise the distinction.

On this thread catholics are attacked. Nobody is obliged to do it, but they do it none the less, and they do it with all kinds of myth and distortion.

On this thread ,catholics would say little or nothing, if their position was presented honestly as it appears in the catechism
But it is not, not even in the OP. So catholics reply to define their position, when the attacks are repeated again and again so are the replies.

It takes two an attacker and a defender to make a fight. But you cannot blame the defender for the fact of the fight.

Should we leave the fight alone? From my personal point of view or standing I COULD NOT CARE LESS what people think of me or what I believe. They can call me any names they like

But I do care that those questioning catholic belief are given a false view of it by others who attack it on myth, so that they either avoid it , when they might have approached it, or indeed start repeating the myths. So that is why I reply.

.

Seem to me you accused us have wrong view about catholic teaching/ believe.

For example, I don't believe the teaching Mary as co redemprtix is inline with the bible.

How you defend it?

Jackson123 · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

I believe a Catholic can be saved because God can look on a heart and tell which hearts are right with him.

I know a lot of Catholic dogma is wrong but people don't trust themselves to dogma.

They trust themselves to Jesus.

Catholicism and Protestantism are both wrong on hell doctrine and if you think this doesn't aggravate the spiritual blindness of unbelievers you are mistaken.

We draw our mental picture of God from the scriptures. We have no physical picture so doctrine is very important in constructing that mental picture.

God doesn't change His mind like men do. We know men do we have more than 2,000 Christian sects. I consider myself a Restorationist which is similar to a Universalist but there are some fine doctrinal differences.

God is inclusive...But with doctrine disputes His people claiming to be His followers have made Him exclusive.

I am so tired of the ignorance. It has affected my perception of Christians...we look like liars to unbelievers on the mercy and grace of God.....we have increased their reprobation by our laziness.

So I am not going to argue with Catholics or Protestansts....I am going to do a Luther and tack the 95 theses up in a very public place.

The best doctrinal picture of God is the universal/Restorationist picture so that is the truth....the others are lies....

Catholics have depicted an angry God and so have Protestants....so it is no wonder that unbelievers recoil...

They see the contradiction and can't understand why if Christ paid the penalty for sin that God is still so angry with them and standing over them with a threatening posture.

Hell doctrine is the biggest lie of all time...and I am going to be Martin Luther....come hell or high water....

I've been watching zealots from all sides for years on religious doctrinal questions and zealots are stupid and lazy.

Zeal is higher than knowledge but zeal with knowledge is better so I better get out of cyber space and get my one man band wagon to change the world on the road.

Because sometimes the best man for a really big job is a woman.

Grow some balls, guys....cya!

You said a lot of Catholic dogma is wrong.

Wrong in this case is oppose the dogma of Jesus, am I correct?

If so why they don't leave catholic and be with Jesus?

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member