The "Reformation"

  • 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.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,406
376
83
#61
The break itself was a split within one church rather than 2 already separate churches with competing claims against each other.
Well there you go. That makes ONE CHURCH a myth. Ideally there should have been no split. And their actual practices make them two distinct groups, which even make the sign of the cross differently.

Not to mention the wickedness and apostasy of the priests, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, and popes. Just recently pope Francis tried to cover up the sexual crimes of a bishop and a disgraced priest rather than honestly deal with this rampant abuse - not just in this case but throughout the Catholic Church worldwide. This makes the pope as guilty as the predators, and he should have stepped down instead of talking nonsense.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...abuse-cover-up-chilean-victim-says/311439002/

So this is the true Church of Christ according to you? Looks more like the synagogue of Satan.
 
Last edited:
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#62
Well there you go. That makes ONE CHURCH a myth. Ideally there should have been no split. And their actual practices make them two distinct groups, which even make the sign of the cross differently.

Not to mention the wickedness and apostasy of the priests, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, and popes. Just recently pope Francis tried to cover up the sexual crimes of a bishop and a disgraced priest rather than honestly deal with this rampant abuse - not just in this case but throughout the Catholic Church worldwide. This makes the pope as guilty as the predators, and he should have stepped down instead of talking nonsense.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...abuse-cover-up-chilean-victim-says/311439002/

So this is the true Church of Christ according to you? Looks more like the synagogue of Satan.
Not so just because a schism happened within the church does not mean both ends are incorrect there was schisms among God's chosen people in the time of old as well ever hear of the Samaritans?
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#63
You are not qualified to teach Christians anything; because Christians are by definition followers of Jesus teachings; and the RCC is, by practice, not following Jesus teachings.

Jesus taught: Love your enemies. Pray for those who despitefully use you. The Catholic church responded with crusades, inquisition, burnings and torture.

Jesus taught (in a Spiritual sense) Call no man father. Catholics call their priesthood father.

Scripture says that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. Catholics make their priests celibate and those priests sexually abuse children.

Scripture teaches 1 Tim 2:5-6
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
KJV

Catholics pray to Mary and to dead saints.

Peter was NEVER in any Way the leader of the 1st century Church.

James led the Church at Jerusalem.

There is much more but deal with this first
Ok there have been bad actions by Catholics? Want me to bring up the killings by the English monarchy or the cultic society in Geneva against people who didn't agree with Protestantism? Didn't think so there are evil people in every corner of the world anyhow the crusades were a military retaliation against invading Muslims if they never occurred it's very likely Christianity would be a dead religion and you and I would be Muslims. The inquisition was also initially an internal church battle against heresy the problems came because at the time in the Holy Roman Empire heresy was a capitol offense and the secular government had the legal rights to execute heretics the killings done in the name of the inquisition had little to do with the church itself.

Call no man father? How do you respond to St. Paul referring to himself as an appointed teacher and spiritual father for the church in that same verse it says not to call any man rabbi, rabbi is Hebrew for teacher if this were so cut and dry this would be a clear contradiction. What Christ was warning against was not the title "father" or "teacher" or "master" itself but rather the hypocrisy in men who vainly seek such titles so they can feel the glory God feels in being the father of all. Could this describe some priests within the church? Sure but that's an issue between them and God not something that could be addressed church wide.

Scripture never says a "pastor" "must" be the husband of one wife rather in the verse you are speaking of it is saying a bishop must have no more than one wife we can come to this conclusion because St. Paul himself in the scriptures makes note of his own celibacy. The Catholic Church also does not force celibacy on priests not all priests are unmarried some converts are accepted into the priesthood who are already married and many eastern Catholic churches have married priests so this is an invalid argument. Also statistics show men who are Catholic priests are no more likely to commit sexually related crimes than any other men in society so your comment on molestation is just mere hatred.

Yes scripture does teach there is one mediator between God and man Jesus. This is true and Catholics believe this what the verse teaches is that Christ is both God and man and that all grace ultimately comes from Christ. So not sure the point of this comment. St. James did lead the church in Jerusalem this much is acknowledged. St. Peter however lead the church in Antioch and later the church in Rome and because he was killed in Rome, Rome is given primacy the reason being because in Matthew 16 Christ tells Peter he is the one the church is built upon, so yes in some way Peter did lead the church in the 1st century.

And yes Catholics do pray to Mary but not dead saints because the saints are not dead they are more alive than me or you the saints are those in Heaven. However we do not pray to Mary or any of the saints in the same way we pray to God we pray through by asking them to "pray for us". This is possible because salvation is the total enjoyment to the body of Christ there are also verses backing this up such as Revelation 5.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
81
48
#64
Ok there have been bad actions by Catholics? Want me to bring up the killings by the English monarchy or the cultic society in Geneva against people who didn't agree with Protestantism? Didn't think so there are evil people in every corner of the world anyhow the crusades were a military retaliation against invading Muslims if they never occurred it's very likely Christianity would be a dead religion and you and I would be Muslims. The inquisition was also initially an internal church battle against heresy the problems came because at the time in the Holy Roman Empire heresy was a capitol offense and the secular government had the legal rights to execute heretics the killings done in the name of the inquisition had little to do with the church itself.

Call no man father? How do you respond to St. Paul referring to himself as an appointed teacher and spiritual father for the church in that same verse it says not to call any man rabbi, rabbi is Hebrew for teacher if this were so cut and dry this would be a clear contradiction. What Christ was warning against was not the title "father" or "teacher" or "master" itself but rather the hypocrisy in men who vainly seek such titles so they can feel the glory God feels in being the father of all. Could this describe some priests within the church? Sure but that's an issue between them and God not something that could be addressed church wide.

Scripture never says a "pastor" "must" be the husband of one wife rather in the verse you are speaking of it is saying a bishop must have no more than one wife we can come to this conclusion because St. Paul himself in the scriptures makes note of his own celibacy. The Catholic Church also does not force celibacy on priests not all priests are unmarried some converts are accepted into the priesthood who are already married and many eastern Catholic churches have married priests so this is an invalid argument. Also statistics show men who are Catholic priests are no more likely to commit sexually related crimes than any other men in society so your comment on molestation is just mere hatred.

Yes scripture does teach there is one mediator between God and man Jesus. This is true and Catholics believe this what the verse teaches is that Christ is both God and man and that all grace ultimately comes from Christ. So not sure the point of this comment. St. James did lead the church in Jerusalem this much is acknowledged. St. Peter however lead the church in Antioch and later the church in Rome and because he was killed in Rome, Rome is given primacy the reason being because in Matthew 16 Christ tells Peter he is the one the church is built upon, so yes in some way Peter did lead the church in the 1st century.

And yes Catholics do pray to Mary but not dead saints because the saints are not dead they are more alive than me or you the saints are those in Heaven. However we do not pray to Mary or any of the saints in the same way we pray to God we pray through by asking them to "pray for us". This is possible because salvation is the total enjoyment to the body of Christ there are also verses backing this up such as Revelation 5.
I certainly do not defend crimes committed by Protestants, nor heresy.
Yet that is all you are about.
Nothing about RCC propaganda is correct and the crimes committed by the RCC throughout its history cannot be explained away...
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,889
695
113
#65
Rex, look up Mary I Queen of England, daughter of Henry VIII. She reigned before Elizabeth I, after her father had established the Anglican church, for his own evil purposes, not so much because of the Bible and sound doctrine.

You might have heard of her nickname - Bloody Mary. She was queen of England from July 1553, after her half-brother Edward VI died young, with no children. He was a staunch Protestant, in doctrine, rather than just convenience.

She is best known for her aggressive campaign to reverse the English Reformation which had begun in the reign of her father, the executions that marked her pursuit of the restoration of Roman Catholicism in England and Ireland, led to her nickname!

During her 5 year reign, over 280 religious dissenters were burned at the stake in the Marian persecutions. Fortunately, Elizabeth I reversed her tragic attempts to change England back to the authorities and doctrinally wrong RCC. And she was also a brilliant leader, during her 45 year reign, including defeating the pope in his attempts to invade England, and defeating the Spanish Armada, which was supported by Catholic Countries and the pope.

I guess God really wasn't on the side of the RCC. Do you think that might be because of the Spanish Inquisition? I personally think it is more the evil in ALL the Catholic Church, the lies that were told to the common people, the money that was stolen from them for indulgences to build higher ups in the Catholic hierarchies palaces and cathedrals, and off course, the money that was taken falsely to say "masses" for the dead! No amount of degenerate masses are getting people out of hell, if they do not know Jesus, and of course, there is that purgatory lie.

So, next time remember when you criticize the English monarchy for killing Catholics, reach back and look where the mass murders started, and remember it was Mary I who started this dreadful state. Such a selective memory you Catholics have!
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
5,559
116
63
#66
I never said protestants don't follow sola scriptura I said sola scriptura itself is a problematic view that is both ahistorical and logically conflicting regardless if protestants fully adhere to this or not. My statement about certain protestants not adhering to the Lutheran interpretation of sola scriptura is a historical fact ask a Methodist or an Anglican if they believe that all truth must be directly within the Bible then ask a Lutheran or a Presbyterian the same question you'll get 2 different answers.
Its only problematic to those who follow another manner of faith other than the same spirit of faith according as it is written The law and the prophets(sola scriptura)

Sola scriptura was the restoring authority during the first century reformation as a pattern or carbon copy for the fifteenth century . In both cases a false zeal for knowing God was exposed for what it is as that which the Catholics must call apostolic succession a succession on men they call the "law of the fathers" .Taking the things of God and adding them to the things of men making claims they both come from the same source..

By law of the father or oral tradition of the father they make the commandments like.. "call no man on earth father" without effect .
 

Depleted

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2015
22,166
479
83
Philly, PA, USA
#67
Rex, would you like me to go down point by point to prove you have absolutely no idea of church history, RCC history, Protestant history, or even any concept of what the RCC believes?

You should be utterly embarrassed by what you're laying down as truth, but it seems you aren't simply because you never bothered to learn about what you're teaching in the first place.

I sincerely feel like I'm watching a grade school kid who thinks he's teaching a college course.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
5,559
116
63
#68
And yes Catholics do pray to Mary but not dead saints because the saints are not dead they are more alive than me or you the saints are those in Heaven. However we do not pray to Mary or any of the saints in the same way we pray to God we pray through by asking them to "pray for us". This is possible because salvation is the total enjoyment to the body of Christ there are also verses backing this up such as Revelation 5.
That would define the foundation of necromancy according to sola scriptura as the things exclusively of God ,as it is written.

Its how the scriptures defines necromancy as to
what a pew Catholic, lorded over by a law of their fathers must call "patron saints" which is seeking after workers with familiar spirits.

There is one manner called our Holy father in heaven by which we can seek after Him who has no form . And not manners as in many ,we do not seek after our brothers and sisters who have left this realm under s the sun .

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

We do not hallow or venerate men after necromancy .But rather seek after Christ by the light of His word as a lamp unto our feet.

How may patron saints as workers with familiar spirits will be enough ? There are more than 3,500 workers with familiar spirits (gods) made in the likeness of men available.The number is picking up speed. Why? There is one assigned a certain work load by the Pope for every occasion .Why?
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
5,559
116
63
#69
Yes scripture does teach there is one mediator between God and man Jesus. This is true and Catholics believe this what the verse teaches is that Christ is both God and man and that all grace ultimately comes from Christ.
Does it teach there is a daysman or what a pew Catholic must call a Pope set between God and man as a infallible umpire?

Yes the Catholic teaches that grace comes from Christ but not exclusively of or through Christ alone . They offer a unknown remnant coming from Christ to add to the many other unknown remnants. And have a catch all called purgatory where men suffer for a undetermined amount of time or severity .They have designed many ways to walk by sight as those who seek after a sign before they believe as if the kingdom did come by observation..

So not sure the point of this comment. St. James did lead the church in Jerusalem this much is acknowledged. St. Peter however lead the church in Antioch and later the church in Rome and because he was killed in Rome, Rome is given primacy the reason being because in Matthew 16 Christ tells Peter he is the one the church is built upon, so yes in some way Peter did lead the church in the 1st century;
Is there a need for the Holy Spirit?

Either true Christians are led by the unseen Spirit of Christ in them or they are following after another gospel

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The whole primacy (who is the greatest) doctrine is not of God to begin with. .The idea that Peter is that which represents the faith of God in respect to the word it makes it clear the gospel is the key that unlocks the gates of hell not Peter the denier. Who five minutes after he supposedly received the key tried to use it to prevent Christ from doing the work of the gospel .

We are warned in 1 John 2 of those who would seduce us to believe we do need a man as that seen to teach us. He instructs us as it again that which represents the faith of God teaches us we are to abide in Him .(1 john 2:27-28)

Will you heed the warning and believe it or rather dead Peter who is no longer here under the Sun.??

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mat 16:15

I emphasize the it in verse 17 as a source of faith represents the same it in the next verse . It’s what makes the devil flee as it is written

Again five minutes later the man with the proverbial key blasphemes the Son of man. I think I would of chose Paul as long as a person must divide , Christ. and play who is the greatest..

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this "shall not" be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art "an offence" unto me: for thou savourest not "the things that be of God", but those that be of men.Mat 16:22

I chose Christ as the greatest key holder as it is written .

Who will you serve today seeing no man can serve two teaching masters ? The things of men of that it of God?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
11,316
362
83
#70
One of the main reasons for the reformation was Rome's heavy hand upon any who dared to question her authority. Absolute authority leads to absolute corruption.

Doctrinally corrupt, morally corrupt and wielding nearly absolute power. The people could not worship God they were living in fear of the "church".

For the cause of Christ
Roger

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
119
63
#71
In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions.
But they protested against those who had turned from the truth to 'tradition'. They protested that we should go BACK to Scripture, and proceeded to do so. They were much more likely to be right than those who followed a vague tradition



It is known that most on this forum will be scratching their heads at this post and claiming that I am trying to spread my own Catholic beliefs or that I am ignoring supposedly clear aspects to the scriptures that is not so, I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.
Your case is obviously false

The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options
Because many did NOT go back to Scripture. But those who did were thinking rightly. Scripture had been left far behind.

this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16)
And the gates of Hades have not prevailed against it, But they had a good try in Roman Catholicism

and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17).
He prayed that they might be one in spirit, not 'one' in false doctrine.

o
n historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is
The basis is very simple. It was on apostolic truth, from which the Roman Catholic church (and others) has gone sadly astray)..

rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship
HOW COULD THE BIBLE NOT EXIST AT THE tIME OF AUTHORSHIP?


but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15).
But the ONLY pillar and support of the early church that we have is found in the pages of Scripture.

history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.
The Bible alone tells us what the Apostles taught. We do not want the delusions of later tradition,

the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession)
Ah but there you go astray. THEY did nor hold the teaching of the Apostle, as a survey shows quite clearly. We have to go back to the Scriptures to find what the Apostles taught. They alone CONTAIN the teaching of the Apostles. Sola scriptura is the only safe way to ensure we are following the apostles doctrine,
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#72
Rex, would you like me to go down point by point to prove you have absolutely no idea of church history, RCC history, Protestant history, or even any concept of what the RCC believes?

You should be utterly embarrassed by what you're laying down as truth, but it seems you aren't simply because you never bothered to learn about what you're teaching in the first place.

I sincerely feel like I'm watching a grade school kid who thinks he's teaching a college course.
I truly enjoy being told I don't understand my own religious beliefs this is coming from an outsider looking in thank you for more faulty speculation based on protestant myth of the Catholic Church.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#73
Rex, look up Mary I Queen of England, daughter of Henry VIII. She reigned before Elizabeth I, after her father had established the Anglican church, for his own evil purposes, not so much because of the Bible and sound doctrine.

You might have heard of her nickname - Bloody Mary. She was queen of England from July 1553, after her half-brother Edward VI died young, with no children. He was a staunch Protestant, in doctrine, rather than just convenience.

She is best known for her aggressive campaign to reverse the English Reformation which had begun in the reign of her father, the executions that marked her pursuit of the restoration of Roman Catholicism in England and Ireland, led to her nickname!

During her 5 year reign, over 280 religious dissenters were burned at the stake in the Marian persecutions. Fortunately, Elizabeth I reversed her tragic attempts to change England back to the authorities and doctrinally wrong RCC. And she was also a brilliant leader, during her 45 year reign, including defeating the pope in his attempts to invade England, and defeating the Spanish Armada, which was supported by Catholic Countries and the pope.

I guess God really wasn't on the side of the RCC. Do you think that might be because of the Spanish Inquisition? I personally think it is more the evil in ALL the Catholic Church, the lies that were told to the common people, the money that was stolen from them for indulgences to build higher ups in the Catholic hierarchies palaces and cathedrals, and off course, the money that was taken falsely to say "masses" for the dead! No amount of degenerate masses are getting people out of hell, if they do not know Jesus, and of course, there is that purgatory lie.

So, next time remember when you criticize the English monarchy for killing Catholics, reach back and look where the mass murders started, and remember it was Mary I who started this dreadful state. Such a selective memory you Catholics have!
I am well aware of who Mary was and her acts were unjustified the fact of the matter is such killings were not ordered by the church rather that was her own doing. I was also not making excuses as to the violence done in the name of the church really look into the history of the crusades and the inquisition. The executions done in lieu of the inquisition where historically and factually a matter of civil government and the crusades were a means of protection against incoming invaders so I really don't understand how either can be used as a logical "disproof" of Catholicism. On the same note both Mary's father Henry VIII and successor Elizabeth I created civil laws outlawing the practice of Catholicism resulting in the murder of tens of thousands of innocent lives so in essence bringing this up is really a two way street. The back and forth troubles between Catholic and Protestant Britain actually remain in effect to some extent this day. Catholicism was not a legal religion until the 1800s and the Irish civil war and later the very existence of Northern Ireland as well as the historic potato famines all are part of history because of the British governments mistreatment of the Catholic population of Britain and Ireland.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#74
But they protested against those who had turned from the truth to 'tradition'. They protested that we should go BACK to Scripture, and proceeded to do so. They were much more likely to be right than those who followed a vague tradition





Your case is obviously false



Because many did NOT go back to Scripture. But those who did were thinking rightly. Scripture had been left far behind.



And the gates of Hades have not prevailed against it, But they had a good try in Roman Catholicism



He prayed that they might be one in spirit, not 'one' in false doctrine.

o

The basis is very simple. It was on apostolic truth, from which the Roman Catholic church (and others) has gone sadly astray)..



HOW COULD THE BIBLE NOT EXIST AT THE tIME OF AUTHORSHIP?




But the ONLY pillar and support of the early church that we have is found in the pages of Scripture.



The Bible alone tells us what the Apostles taught. We do not want the delusions of later tradition,

Ah but there you go astray. THEY did nor hold the teaching of the Apostle, as a survey shows quite clearly. We have to go back to the Scriptures to find what the Apostles taught. They alone CONTAIN the teaching of the Apostles. Sola scriptura is the only safe way to ensure we are following the apostles doctrine,

To continuously state that Protestantism logically should exist merely because you believe that Catholicism was and is in error does not answer any questions. This is circular reasoning and very much begs the question one must give the reason as to why the Catholic Church either is a newly formed false religion or fell into error at one point. One must also be capable of pulling up historic sources that can show that the protestant interpretation of the gospels is correct to simply state that it is correct because when one reads it in spirit that is the result is fully illogical. In fact such use of faulty reason further begs deeper questions that have been addressed numerous times but have been chosen to either be skirted over or be fully ignored. Such as how would one know which interpretation of scripture is the correct one if it is all up to the individual to be in truth without any external guide. In fact such vague understandings of preservation of truth is the exact reason Protestantism is not never was and will never be a "church" in the general sense meaning an organized religion but rather was a schismatic splinter movement from the start that only began to and continues to divide more and more by the second. I 100% guarantee you if Martin Luther or John Calvin walked into a modern ECLA(liberal Lutheran) or modern megachurch they would run back to the nearest confessional as soon as possible. I'll finish this reply with a quote from the reformers Martin Luther on the importance of the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39)

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
(Luther on the immaculate conception)

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1,[SIZE=-1]
1522).


It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother. God is his father. (Sermon. Christmas, 1522)
[SIZE=-1]Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees...If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529). [/SIZE]Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523).
[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
[/SIZE]
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#75
But they protested against those who had turned from the truth to 'tradition'. They protested that we should go BACK to Scripture, and proceeded to do so. They were much more likely to be right than those who followed a vague tradition





Your case is obviously false



Because many did NOT go back to Scripture. But those who did were thinking rightly. Scripture had been left far behind.



And the gates of Hades have not prevailed against it, But they had a good try in Roman Catholicism



He prayed that they might be one in spirit, not 'one' in false doctrine.

o

The basis is very simple. It was on apostolic truth, from which the Roman Catholic church (and others) has gone sadly astray)..



HOW COULD THE BIBLE NOT EXIST AT THE tIME OF AUTHORSHIP?




But the ONLY pillar and support of the early church that we have is found in the pages of Scripture.



The Bible alone tells us what the Apostles taught. We do not want the delusions of later tradition,

Ah but there you go astray. THEY did nor hold the teaching of the Apostle, as a survey shows quite clearly. We have to go back to the Scriptures to find what the Apostles taught. They alone CONTAIN the teaching of the Apostles. Sola scriptura is the only safe way to ensure we are following the apostles doctrine,

May I also point out that if it is impossible to trust the earliest Christians writings on how to interpret the apostles writings whom dare I say have an almost unanimous consensus on the matter what is the point of trusting the scriptures to begin with. As it should seem obvious that we are essentially saying that our view on Christianity is more valuable than what the historic Christians tell us this would seem to be relativism.
 

davida

Senior Member
Sep 9, 2017
115
1
0
#76
Rex, would you like me to go down point by point to prove you have absolutely no idea of church history, RCC history, Protestant history, or even any concept of what the RCC believes?

You should be utterly embarrassed by what you're laying down as truth, but it seems you aren't simply because you never bothered to learn about what you're teaching in the first place.

I sincerely feel like I'm watching a grade school kid who thinks he's teaching a college course.
That's what ppl think when they read you but since they feel sorry for you they don't say it.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,805
350
83
#77
Ok there have been bad actions by Catholics? Want me to bring up the killings by the English monarchy or the cultic society in Geneva against people who didn't agree with Protestantism?
This is a classic tu quoque fallacy. Let's avoid the discussion of the wrongs "we" have done and shift focus to the wrongs "you" or "they" have done.

It doesn't fly. While you are not responsible for all the sins of the RCC, you cannot avoid acknowledging them either if you want to defend Catholicism.
 

pottersclay

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2015
2,919
117
63
#78
There is a difference between someone misleading the flock due to error scripture readings and hopefully by God's grace they are corrected and humble themselves in that correction to admit error and continue on.
Such is not the case of the R.C.C. The have continually mis lead for there own personal gain and have become the enemy of God.
To those that have grown up with the customs and traditions of the R.C.C. do yourself a favor and read for yourselves and compare what you have been lead to believe and the truth. We are accountable for what we believe is the truth of God's word.
With that being said my question to this thread is this....
Do you think that the R.C.C. has quit in her persuit to bring back converts to her fold or do you think that she will play a part in the last days in killing the saints? Ushering in a universal religion. Do you think the order of the Jesuits still exist?
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,333
113
#79
There is a difference between someone misleading the flock due to error scripture readings and hopefully by God's grace they are corrected and humble themselves in that correction to admit error and continue on.
Such is not the case of the R.C.C. The have continually mis lead for there own personal gain and have become the enemy of God.
To those that have grown up with the customs and traditions of the R.C.C. do yourself a favor and read for yourselves and compare what you have been lead to believe and the truth. We are accountable for what we believe is the truth of God's word.
With that being said my question to this thread is this....
Do you think that the R.C.C. has quit in her persuit to bring back converts to her fold or do you think that she will play a part in the last days in killing the saints? Ushering in a universal religion. Do you think the order of the Jesuits still exist?
Part of the problem is that Roman Catholics deny knowing what the RCC teaches. Or flat out deny that the RCC teaches what it does. They lie, like our OP, who starts out by saying he is not here to spread his RCC beliefs, when that is exactly what he is doing :p

One recent Catholic here tried to tell us that the Hail Mary is not a prayer :eek: I mean really, how stupid do they think Christians are? Rhetorical question, by the way ;):D:) For some, deception is their game, because it is all they know.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,406
376
83
#80
Do you think that the R.C.C. has quit in her persuit to bring back converts to her fold...
No. The RCC will not quit trying to bring the Orthodox and the apostate Protestants into her fold. Some fake evangelicals have also begun to kiss the pope's foot.
...or do you think that she will play a part in the last days in killing the saints?
That's a distinct possibility.
Ushering in a universal religion.
"Being ushered into" a universal religion will be more like it. The Antichrist will be very powerful and very persuasive.
Do you think the order of the Jesuits still exist?
Of course. They never stopped existing and they are the militant arm of the RCC.