Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[Last]

The church started getting corrupted by power hungry men and wonky in 300's, but Romanism didn’t start till the ninth century I believe, Pepin’s son, Charlemagne, came to Rome and on Christmas Day, 800, was formally crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III. This act symbolized the division of East and West but the Church of Rome was not the same as the original church. If it had to be declared in 800 as Rome that means it was something other prior.

You are not making any sense and your history is completely jumbled. The recognition of Charlemagne as the emperor of the Franks (the HRE was a confederacy of central European kingdoms and duchies) was in no way a formal act of division. The rest of your post is historically confusing I can't even begin to address or make sense of it.

 

[StoneThrower]

You are not making any sense and your history is completely jumbled. The recognition of Charlemagne as the emperor of the Franks (the HRE was a confederacy of central European kingdoms and duchies) was in no way a formal act of division. The rest of your post is historically confusing I can't even begin to address or make sense of it.

Ok all I am saying is, The RCC of today didn’t exist until much later around 9th century. The Early church started getting Power hungry and corrupted by men around the 300's but that was not the Roman Catholic Church It was just the Church.
Anyone thats never taken a early church history course here is a great one you can save to your Ipod. It’s very informative epically if you have never taken a course in school.
Church History | Resources | Redeemer Bible Church

 

[ThomistColin]

How is it that people can look at men like Jimmy Swaggart, the Bakers, and so many more and say, "Well there are false teachers in the Church, doesn't mean the Church is false," and then look at the Catholic Church and talk about how evil it is because corruption exists somewhere in its history? How? Because the argument used about the false teachers is St. Augustine's, a Roman Catholic, response to the Donatists.

Also, please tell me. If the Roman Catholic Church is that corrupt...how is it the longest lasting organization in human history? Tell me that. Despite the fact that corrupt men have bankrupt the Vatican, have sat upon the seat of Peter for their own gain, have allowed heresies to rise and fall, despite all of that, it still stands. Despite all of that, other men have sat upon the seat of Peter and reformed the Church, other men brought riches in and through the Vatican and out into the human world (founding leper colonies and hospitals, hospitals, orphanages, schools, and so many charitable organizations), and some men rose even during times of corruption and the corruption was forced to stop and marvel at these men. How?! HOW?!

To me, there is only one logical reason. The gates of Hell are being prevented from prevailing. Someone is ensuring the continuation of the Church, in spite of the people within it. The only logical explanation I can find is that God Himself is protecting this Church. God Himself is causing the dark secrets and scandals to be continually brought to the light of day. God Himself is ensuring that evil men who were called Pope are exposed even in their own time. God Himself is watching and supporting the Church in times of war. God will not allow His Church to fall into ruin, He will prune and burn out rot. God Himself is why the Catholic Church has stood now for almost 2000 years.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context."

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[notuptome]

How is it that people can look at men like Jimmy Swaggart, the Bakers, and so many more and say, "Well there are false teachers in the Church, doesn't mean the Church is false," and then look at the Catholic Church and talk about how evil it is because corruption exists somewhere in its history? How? Because the argument used about the false teachers is St. Augustine's, a Roman Catholic, response to the Donatists.

Also, please tell me. If the Roman Catholic Church is that corrupt...how is it the longest lasting organization in human history? Tell me that. Despite the fact that corrupt men have bankrupt the Vatican, have sat upon the seat of Peter for their own gain, have allowed heresies to rise and fall, despite all of that, it still stands. Despite all of that, other men have sat upon the seat of Peter and reformed the Church, other men brought riches in and through the Vatican and out into the human world (founding leper colonies and hospitals, hospitals, orphanages, schools, and so many charitable organizations), and some men rose even during times of corruption and the corruption was forced to stop and marvel at these men. How?! HOW?!

To me, there is only one logical reason. The gates of Hell are being prevented from prevailing. Someone is ensuring the continuation of the Church, in spite of the people within it. The only logical explanation I can find is that God Himself is protecting this Church. God Himself is causing the dark secrets and scandals to be continually brought to the light of day. God Himself is ensuring that evil men who were called Pope are exposed even in their own time. God Himself is watching and supporting the Church in times of war. God will not allow His Church to fall into ruin, He will prune and burn out rot. God Himself is why the Catholic Church has stood now for almost 2000 years.

The church that Christ birthed is not an organization it is an organism.

God has always had a remnant and not the masses. Those who know Christ have entered at the narrow gate for the wide path is the path that leads to destruction. The way that seems right to men is the way of death.

God is about truth and grace not traditions and superstitions.

As for Sweigart and Bakker men of this ilk and you can probably add many more do not give much evidence that they inherited anything more than treasures on this earth. I'm not able to say with certainty either for or against the salvation of these men so I leave to God but they have done much shame to the name of Christ.

It all comes down to biblical doctrine. Those who espouse sound biblical doctrine are of Christ. They know and are known of Christ. By grace they are being conformed to the very image of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Last]

Ok all I am saying is, The RCC of today didn’t exist until much later around 9th century.

But you aren't saying why you assert that. No serious historian would agree with you.

The Early church started getting Power hungry and corrupted by men around the 300's but that was not the Roman Catholic Church It was just the Church.

It was Called the Catholic Church in the 300s. It was in the 300s that Christianity was legalized. I am not sure where you are getting the notion that the leaders were power hungry around this time. That was not true.

Anyone thats never taken a early church history course here is a great one you can save to your Ipod. It’s very informative epically if you have never taken a course in school.

Church History | Resources | Redeemer Bible Church

I'd suggest getting history from an impartial academic source, not from a random site on the internet.

 

[Last]

The church that Christ birthed is not an organization it is an organism.

Except that we find that the Church as Christ set it up was quite organized as is recorded in the New Testament. By the end of the first century, that Church was called the Catholic Church. The problem is that there are people out there that actually believe the early church was like how Christianity operates today in their home country.

God has always had a remnant and not the masses. Those who know Christ have entered at the narrow gate for the wide path is the path that leads to destruction. The way that seems right to men is the way of death.

The only minority of Christianity until the Reformation were the Gnostic. Are you suggesting that Gnostics are the remnant?

God is about truth and grace not traditions and superstitions.

You are saying that like someone is going to disagree with you.

It all comes down to biblical doctrine. Those who espouse sound biblical doctrine are of Christ. They know and are known of Christ. By grace they are being conformed to the very image of Christ.

And how do you determine bible doctrine? Do you determine doctrine by relying on the theologies created from 1517-2014 by reformers? The theologies that inform many protestants into how to interpret and determine 'bible doctrine'. When you read the bible, you read it according to the theologies you hold. I prefer to read the scripture as it has been continually understood since 33 AD. But when you start to speak of looking at how Christians understood scripture in 100, 300, 500, 800, 1100, 1500, 1700, 2000, and find a continuity, a similar belief held for all centuries of Christianities, that is called 'man made tradition'.

The fundamentalist protestant decries such a thing, then starts spouting reformation theologies as if they aren't the true man made traditions. It's quite ironic.

 

[notuptome]

Except that we find that the Church as Christ set it up was quite organized as is recorded in the New Testament. By the end of the first century, that Church was called the Catholic Church. The problem is that there are people out there that actually believe the early church was like how Christianity operates today in their home country.

In the context of this thread catholic means the roman catholic church. True that the word catholic means universal and in that context the church was catholic but it has no root or connection to the current roman catholic church. Christ did not set up an organization of men but an organism, His body, composed of born again blood bought Christians.

The only minority of Christianity until the Reformation were the Gnostic. Are you suggesting that Gnostics are the remnant?

If you are a student of bible history you would see that God chose the small and undesirable, Israel, to be His people. Today God saves those who see themselves as sinners with no hope apart from God's mercy and grace. Completely undeserving of grace but a humble receiver none the less. God is not concerned with mega churches but sincere humble hearts in believers all across the world.

You are saying that like someone is going to disagree with you.

Saying that because the roman catholic church ascribes equal value to rites, traditions and scriptures when only scripture is inspired, even God breathed.

And how do you determine bible doctrine? Do you determine doctrine by relying on the theologies created from 1517-2014 by reformers? The theologies that inform many protestants into how to interpret and determine 'bible doctrine'. When you read the bible, you read it according to the theologies you hold. I prefer to read the scripture as it has been continually understood since 33 AD. But when you start to speak of looking at how Christians understood scripture in 100, 300, 500, 800, 1100, 1500, 1700, 2000, and find a continuity, a similar belief held for all centuries of Christianities, that is called 'man made tradition'.

The fundamentalist protestant decries such a thing, then starts spouting reformation theologies as if they aren't the true man made traditions. It's quite ironic.

Apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit it cannot be done. Only those who are born again and have the Holy Spirit leading and guiding into the truth can achieve that which pleases God.

Adhering to the doctrine of the dead has no virtue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[StoneThrower]

It was Called the Catholic Church in the 300s.

Yes and it was a whole differnt animal from the RCC

I'd suggest getting history from an impartial academic source, not from a random site on the internet.

R W Glenn is highly esteemed in evangelicalism, maybe you should listen to the lectures before you criticize them.

I had church history in college as part of my degree, and have two book shelves dedicated to it, and had had two other courses since then in it.
I am stating my opinion based on collective knowledge, not providing a dissertation. Its fine if you disagree, but whenever you have a political structure and privilege position you will have corruption and power grabs. You do recall at one time the church and government were comingled? Do you recall having three men claim to be pope at one time? Like the split between the east and the west.
If you want to march through history together we can, but I really don’t have that kind of time to give you. I'd suggest you study it for yourself. I dont mean that to sound arrogant but between a full time job and the church I come here to relax and for a little break.

 

[notuptome]

It is very important to know that God is not saving souls through a corporate gospel. God deals with and saves each soul on an individual basis. Yes the criteria is the same but each soul is unique and very much loved by God. Christ did not build a church corporate but a church of individual souls all upon His person. These individual souls may worship in the corporate but they worship first in the individual and the relationship is individual and personal.

I am not saved because I belong to any church but I am the church because I am saved in Christ. I am one of the many parts uniquely fitted together in Christ to form the body, the bride of Christ. Glory to God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Last]

In the context of this thread catholic means the roman catholic church. True that the word catholic means universal and in that context the church was catholic but it has no root or connection to the current roman catholic church. Christ did not set up an organization of men but an organism, His body, composed of born again blood bought Christians.

"Born again Christians" was a term made up in the 1960s by American Evangelicals.
The Catholic Church has always been the Catholic Church. When the protestants left the Church and insisted they were still Catholic, it did not change the nature of the Church.

Jesus did not create a Church of anarchy and disunity. He created leaders who appointed other leaders. So, either the leadership still exists today or the Church that Christ created is dead.

If you are a student of bible history you would see that God chose the small and undesirable, Israel, to be His people. Today God saves those who see themselves as sinners with no hope apart from God's mercy and grace. Completely undeserving of grace but a humble receiver none the less. God is not concerned with mega churches but sincere humble hearts in believers all across the world.

God created a single Church, not a bunch of completely isolated groups full of false teachers. The Church has been plagued by false teachers since the beginning. Christ created leaders who appointed other leaders to make sure that the flock knew whom to trust.

Saying that because the roman catholic church ascribes equal value to rites, traditions and scriptures when only scripture is inspired, even God breathed.

Scripture never says it is the only source of teaching that is inspired.

That's one of those man-made traditions protestants have.

Apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit it cannot be done. Only those who are born again and have the Holy Spirit leading and guiding into the truth can achieve that which pleases God.

If the Holy Spirit was guiding the born again believers, you could find two that agreed. Yet, every protestant disagrees on matters of serious importance.

 

[Last]

Yes and it was a whole differnt animal from the RCC

No, it's not. the Church of the 4th Century had the bishop of Rome as the head. It believed as Catholic believed now. It resembles nothing of 21st Century American evangelicalism.

[R W Glenn is highly esteemed in evangelicalism, maybe you should listen to the lectures before you criticize them.

Or I can stick with reputable sources.

I had church history in college as part of my degree, and have two book shelves dedicated to it, and had had two other courses since then in it.

I am stating my opinion based on collective knowledge, not providing a dissertation. Its fine if you disagree, but whenever you have a political structure and privilege position you will have corruption and power grabs. You do recall at one time the church and government were comingled? Do you recall having three men claim to be pope at one time? Like the split between the east and the west.

It's clear Church history was not a strength of yours given what you have stated here. That's not a bad thing, most people aren't strong in that area, but just don't claim to be. For example, the existence of two pretender popes had nothing to do with the east west schism.

If you want to march through history together we can, but I really don’t have that kind of time to give you. I'd suggest you study it for yourself. I dont mean that to sound arrogant but between a full time job and the church I come here to relax and for a little break.

You make absurd claims and then act like I am stupid and not worth your time for pointing out historical facts. If you were interested in relaxing, then don't post on subjects such as these with absurd claims.

 

[Last]

It is very important to know that God is not saving souls through a corporate gospel. God deals with and saves each soul on an individual basis. Yes the criteria is the same but each soul is unique and very much loved by God. Christ did not build a church corporate but a church of individual souls all upon His person. These individual souls may worship in the corporate but they worship first in the individual and the relationship is individual and personal.

I am not saved because I belong to any church but I am the church because I am saved in Christ. I am one of the many parts uniquely fitted together in Christ to form the body, the bride of Christ. Glory to God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Well you have certainly strained and reduced the Gospel into the twisted philosophy of Hobbes.

The Gospel is not individual, it is communal and it always has been. The problem today is that so many Christians, especially in the west and particularly in America have no idea how political philosophy has fundamentally changed their understanding of the Gospel into something it never was.

No Christian until the time of the Enlightenment would have said what you just said. They'd find it grossly contrary to the faith.

 

[yesyoushould]

Amen RoboOp.

 

[notuptome]

"Born again Christians" was a term made up in the 1960s by American Evangelicals.
The Catholic Church has always been the Catholic Church. When the protestants left the Church and insisted they were still Catholic, it did not change the nature of the Church.

Jesus did not create a Church of anarchy and disunity. He created leaders who appointed other leaders. So, either the leadership still exists today or the Church that Christ created is dead.



God created a single Church, not a bunch of completely isolated groups full of false teachers. The Church has been plagued by false teachers since the beginning. Christ created leaders who appointed other leaders to make sure that the flock knew whom to trust.



Scripture never says it is the only source of teaching that is inspired.

That's one of those man-made traditions protestants have.



If the Holy Spirit was guiding the born again believers, you could find two that agreed. Yet, every protestant disagrees on matters of serious importance.

Wow. The romanist retelling of history is of no interest to me. If you have an argument to make from the scripture please bring it forth. Otherwise you are simply filling the air with vanity for which I have no interest.

Born again by the way comes right from the lips of Jesus. John 3:3

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Well you have certainly strained and reduced the Gospel into the twisted philosophy of Hobbes.

The Gospel is not individual, it is communal and it always has been. The problem today is that so many Christians, especially in the west and particularly in America have no idea how political philosophy has fundamentally changed their understanding of the Gospel into something it never was.

No Christian until the time of the Enlightenment would have said what you just said. They'd find it grossly contrary to the faith.

The preaching of the cross is to those who perish foolishness but to those who are saved it is the power of God unto eternal life. You keep the pope I'll take Jesus.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[OrthodoxCatholic]

How is it that people can look at men like Jimmy Swaggart, the Bakers, and so many more and say, "Well there are false teachers in the Church, doesn't mean the Church is false," and then look at the Catholic Church and talk about how evil it is because corruption exists somewhere in its history? How? Because the argument used about the false teachers is St. Augustine's, a Roman Catholic, response to the Donatists.

Also, please tell me. If the Roman Catholic Church is that corrupt...how is it the longest lasting organization in human history? Tell me that. Despite the fact that corrupt men have bankrupt the Vatican, have sat upon the seat of Peter for their own gain, have allowed heresies to rise and fall, despite all of that, it still stands. Despite all of that, other men have sat upon the seat of Peter and reformed the Church, other men brought riches in and through the Vatican and out into the human world (founding leper colonies and hospitals, hospitals, orphanages, schools, and so many charitable organizations), and some men rose even during times of corruption and the corruption was forced to stop and marvel at these men. How?! HOW?!

To me, there is only one logical reason. The gates of Hell are being prevented from prevailing. Someone is ensuring the continuation of the Church, in spite of the people within it. The only logical explanation I can find is that God Himself is protecting this Church. God Himself is causing the dark secrets and scandals to be continually brought to the light of day. God Himself is ensuring that evil men who were called Pope are exposed even in their own time. God Himself is watching and supporting the Church in times of war. God will not allow His Church to fall into ruin, He will prune and burn out rot. God Himself is why the Catholic Church has stood now for almost 2000 years.

Please how many of their 'faithful' are actually catholic in their 'faith'? you get some that reject the immaculate conception (includine Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clarvoiux) and others who don't (Duns Scotus) some who are modernists (Rahner , De Chardin ect) and others who are anti-modernists (Pius X) you have those who don't consider themselves to be "roman Catholic" (like the Eastern Roman Catholics in the Ukraine still consider themselves 'Orthodox under Rome' and Copts who still hold to the Monophysite heresy)

How is this 'church' even catholic? It survived just like the Nestorian 'church' the Monophysite ' church' and protestants they adapted their 'truths' throughout the ages to accomidate the world. And the Orthodox (that is the True Orthodox) have only preserved it nothing added nothing taken away. An Orthodox from 17 Century Russia, 4th century Ethiopia, 8th century Byzantium and 7th century Rome, 10th century Spain and 9th century England would know where they were in the liturgy (granted only generally due to the difference in rites) belive the same and hold the same to be True.

Let me ask you the question How is it that even though a lack of communication between Siberia and Alaska and Moscow and even Serbia, and Constantinople the Russian Church was able to preserve the same Faith with no differences from Serbia, Russia, or Greece or even Alaska (or even the Western Rites like myself?)????

 

[Shyness]

All this amount to is

John Doe is Catholic

Jane Doe is Protestant.

Jane Doe says to John Doe, "I'm better than you, John Doe because I'm going to heaven and you are not since Jesus love me and not you, John Doe."

The bottom line is everyone needs to live and let live and truthfully, nobody is better than anybody. Can we just agree to disagree and just accept each other despite our differences? No two can posdibly agree on every single thing. It shows how some have no life and rather waste a day arguing on the computer.

 

[yesyoushould]

Bad analogy.

 

[Jackson123]

All this amount to is

John Doe is Catholic

Jane Doe is Protestant.

Jane Doe says to John Doe, "I'm better than you, John Doe because I'm going to heaven and you are not since Jesus love me and not you, John Doe."

The bottom line is everyone needs to live and let live and truthfully, nobody is better than anybody. Can we just agree to disagree and just accept each other despite our differences? No two can posdibly agree on every single thing. It shows how some have no life and rather waste a day arguing on the computer.

The problem is : if there a teaching not inline with the teaching of Jesus in the bible then it is not christian/Christ follower.

They can call them self god or what ever. it is they right. no body can force other to be Jesus follower.

But if one say he is Jesus follower and the teaching not inline with the bible, we have to remain them. It is love to prevent other go to hell.