Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[notuptome]

My faith in Jesus Church is intact, strenghthened through this experience

You need to know the person of Jesus not a church. Jesus alone is able to save you from your sins. The church can do nothing to atone for your sins. There is no virtue in a faith no matter how ardent that faith may be if it is placed in anyone other than Jesus Christ.

Do you believe in or participate in masses for the dead?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Galahad, these matters have been discussed 100 times and more, and we get weary of repeating the obvious answers.

However as one of the only courteous posters you deserve at least some response. But it will be brief.

- The number of references to peter, Jesus, abraham are hardly important surely, because that "popularity" vote would have the unintended consequence of putting Abraham ahead of Jesus! I think I am right in saying however that where several disciples are listed together, Peter is always first.

- You do not mention the obvious reference to rock which is disappointing if you intended balance. The words peter and rock are the same stem, so if you accept that the conversation was in aramaic, which was indeed the first language of the less educated of the holy land, then Jesus says in Mat 16:18 either.

Simon......thou art (Meaning I shall call you) rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, or if you like.
thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church.

In order to avoid the blindingly obvious some will tell you that the conversation was in Greek (nonsense Peter is recorded as speaking Galilean, a dialect of aramaic, which history records is the working language, and indeed the "fields of blood" speech say that aramaic was the language) so they try to distinguish petra and petros to say.

Thou art rock but upon this other (large) rock , I will build my church.
Except nowhere does it say other..or but.
It would therefore actually say "thou art rock and upon this (large?) rock I will build my church
In short they are splitting ungrammatical hairs. Even Calvin and Luther both thought peter was the rock and Special.
The obvious reality is that the greek translator put petros /petra in for effect, not to change the meaning.

From the beginning to end Matthew tries to present the gospel as scripture fulfilled, and refers back to the OT, and quotes Jesus doing that, a number of times because he knew his audience would understand the biblical references.
Jesus is also built up numerous times as a davidic King, and associates himself with that kingdom, for example riding a donkey as Solomon had.

So the obvious meaning of "keys of the kingdom" TO HIS AUDIENCE OF JEWS would be a direct reference back to Hezekiah in Isaiah, where the "keys of the kingdom" are clearly represented as the symbol of an office of steward (similar to prime minister, a role with succession handed down). Keys may well mean something else to todays audience, cutting themselves off from tradition, but that is what it would have meant to the jews who were obsessive about finding meaning from OT.

So when Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom" to peter , it is no accident, it is direct reference back to the priministerial role of Davidic times, an office with succession, and that is how the jews would have understood it. So there it is in the old testament.

Finally when it comes to succession, consider the truth of early christianity. That it was handed down. which is the meaning of paradosis, tradition. And we see in the early church, the appointing of succession of bishops, the empowerment of clergy. Do you really think Jesus would want his church to die out after one generation? The new testament came later. Paul says "stay true to the tradition which we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and later the new testament says "the pillar of truth is the church"

I reply out of courtesy.

You continue to grind on this matter even though you have been shown that scripture does not support your interpretation of the passage. Peter cannot be the rock when scripture teaches in many other places that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Chief cornerstone, the stone set at naught by the builders and so on and on.

It is clear that you will not receive the clear teaching of scripture if it opposes you predetermined position. This is to you a great loss and will be a great hurt.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[KenAllan]

Mikeuk, if you are putting your Faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit then why are you teaching the false Doctrine that Mary was sinless?

You do know the Holy Spirit says that Mary was a sinner? How can you say you have the grace of the Holy Spirit when you teach the opposite of what the Holy Spirit teaches?

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

All includes Mary also Mikeuk.

You are speaking out both sides of your mouth. You say you have the Grace of the Holy Spirit and at the same time teaching just the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says.

Clearly no one who has the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit will ever teach the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says. Its very clear Mikeuk you do not have the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

Since you are speaking on your own and not by the Grace of the Holy Spirit we can ignore everything you say.

Repent Mikeuk. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Accept the Salvation God has for you. Accept the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and you will enter into Heaven with the rest of us True Christians.

Staying on the road you are on will lead to the Lake of Fire.

 

[mikeuk]

Peter cannot be the rock when scripture teaches in many other places that Jesus Christ is the Rock
Roger

Repeating the same argument, Jesus cannot be the rock when scripture says Abraham is the rock.
You assume it can only be used once and in one context, so use that to exclude all other use, and in doing so prove it was Abraham!

I believe Jesus when he said Simon.....thou art Peter, and upon this Peter I build my church.

God has always had a "leader amongst men" in his absence, such as Abraham, Moses and the rest. Why the surprise it continues, or that he should associate them with rock, indeed Peter's name call him and refer him as such.

The arguments on Petros petra are illogical in the extreme.. The likelihood is the conversation took place in Aramaic. And even if there is a possibility it took place in Greek, would Jesus really allow a question of language determine the fate of his church? So the obvious answer is that the meaning you should take is the one that will apply whether in Aramaic and Greek, and that is the literal.

Thou art Peter and upon this peter I will build my Church.

If you take the alternative - thou art rock but on this other rock I build my church , where "But" and "Other" are nowhere said , at very least you are calling Jesus a very bad communicator and evangelist. I would prefer to belief in all cases he said what he meant and meant what he said.

Notice in all cases that RCC takes the more literal of the choices.
- In the case of Thou art peter, upon this peter I build my Church - we take it literally, to mean Peter.
- Eat my flesh and drink my blood - we take it literally as evidence of real presence
- The woman of revelations 12, who else but Mary if taken literally.

It is others who strain at Gnats to find allegory, where none is declared as allegorical.






.

 

[Jackson123]

No, the entire Roman Catholic Church banned human slavery upon excommunication of all who engaged in the practice. Saint Thomas Aquinas (and many others) asserted that slavery was a sin and a series of popes upheld their position. Major pronouncements against slavery were issued by the RCC and eventually, the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) took up the matter issuing a bull excommunicating everyone from the RCC that reduced other humans to slaves while overseas Catholic missionaries fought vigorously against the practice on behalf of both Africans and Indians.

Truthfully, slavery began to decline in the latter days of the Roman Empire as a direct result of military weakness and the "fall" of Rome caused a further decrease in slavery which had never been a significant feature of Germanic societies. Soon, in most parts of Western Europe slavery declined and then virtually disappeared with the emergence of the feudal system, persisting only around the edges of medieval Europe-in Spain, in the vast Moslem world, in the Byzantine Empire, in Kievan Russia, etc... (see 20th century Harvard Professor George Lyman Kittredge's lectures on the history of slavery for more information).

With some exception, by far, the guilt for human slavery between the "fall" of the Roman Empire and the rise of New World slavery under colonialism rests on Muslims. Tens of millions of Caucasians and about one hundred and fifty million Africans, for example, were enslaved by Muslims and castration of males was dutifully executed upon a great many males while a great many females were forced into a life of sex slavery... both human utility slavery (male and female) and sex slavery (female only) being fully sanctioned in orthodox Islam (unlike Christianity).

As socio-historian Dr. Rodney Stark states in chapter four 'God's Justice: The Sin of Slavery' in 'For the Glory of God,' it was not until 1441 when a small Portuguese ship carrying twelve black slaves landed in Lisbon that the reemergence of human slavery took hold again in the Christianized West.

These Africans were a novelty as slavery had long since disappeared in most of Europe with the primary exception being in some areas of the Mediterranean, Spain, and Italy that were still under Moorish (Muslim) rule. In Italy, too, contact between Christians and Muslims sustained slavery-merchants in Venice who actually sold Europeans (mainly Slavs) to the Moors.

Than why Pope John Paul II apology for?

 

[valiant]

Please consider the complete flaw in those the reasoning of the minority view of valiant.

I would be very interested to know of it LOL

Few protestants even agree with him, let alone others.

You must walk with your eyes closed.

When Jesus said
Simon.......thou art rock , and upon this rock I will build my church.
Or if you like
Simon.......thou art peter , and upon this peter I will build my church.

But the New Testament text says, Thou art petros and on this (the one you have just spoken of Peter) PETRA I will build my church.

For no better reason than they would rather scripture did not say what it obviously does

,

A good definition of Roman Catholic theology.

such as valiant split a hair over the fact that Rock (or peter) whichever you choose is declined slightly differently Petra vs Petros in greek, where no such distinction exists in aramaic at all, and in Greek it is used for effect to imply "large"

LOL all the early fathers I cited above recognised the distinction as do many commentaries. The Greek text could have used petros if it meant Peter but it chose to use petra. Why? One reason was to make the distinction between Peter and the petra. The other was because petra is regularly used of Christ as the foundation (Matt 7.24-25; Rom 9.33; 1 Cor 10.4; 1 Peter 2.8).
See also 1 Cor 3.10-11 and note in Eph 2.20 that ALL the Apostles are part of the foundation with Jesus being the chief cornerstone..

But even in Greek what they say does not make ANY sense in ordinary grammar to anyone but them!

It really is a pity that no one taught the Greek speaking early fathers that I cited Mikeuk Greek LOL

You simply cannot in the ordinary rules of idiom of ANY language, change the subject of a sentence, without alerting the reader to the change using prepositions such as "other" or "but" here is what I mean, and certainly not if you want to be understood.

or by using THIS and changing the noun?

If I say to you.... "here is a car, and this big car I sell to you for one thousand dollars" you would find yourself in court and lose, if you tried to give them any other car the first.

not if he stood between two cars and pointed first at one and then at the other? But the example is not a fair one. In your example he does not say YOU ARE A CAR and compare you with something else which has a similar but not the same name.

So if you mean "another car" you have to say, "here is car, but this other car I sell for one thousand dollars" you make it clear, but YOU WOULD STILL NEVER SAY IT IN ANY LANGUAGE!

I can see you've never visited a used car salesman LOL you are cheating as usual. It would all depend on what preceded the statement. Peter as Rocky had already declared a statement which would be the foundation of the church. That was what the THIS referred to in a play on words.

Why would you refer to the first car, if the point you were making was about the second? Nobody does that. You would simply say "this car I sell for one thousand dollars" , not referring to any other.

It is a regular practise for a used car salesman to start with one car and then proceed to the big car he really wants to sell. But your example is NOT a fair one. The salesman does not say YOU ARE A CAR.

So when they interpret it as " Simon, thou art rock but on this other rock I build my church" you can see they are simply manipulating words to try to avoid the blindingly obvious.

Oh those early church fathers! They are so stupid. They don't understand their own language. FOR ALL OF THEM saw precisely that Peter was Rocky and the petra was the statement of Peter.

SO what they are saying does not exist in Aramaic, and is not even viable in Greek without other words.

Then why did the early fathers make their mistake, even the great Augustine?

They will also try to blind you saying it is "peters confession" , faith , whatever that is the Rock.

yep that what the early fathers I cited say.

But that is not what it says. It says "thou art". So it is mindless nonsense.

Do you mean you are talking mindless nonsense?

Calvin for example, says it highlights that Peter was exemplary, exceptional, but tries to pretend it applies to all the apostles instead.

You mean like Eph 2.20.? But Calvin was wrong in this case IF he said what you claimed.

WHich is still stretching the truth, but not nearly as badly as valiant.

Valiant will accept the words of the early Greek fathers. He should know by now that the early fathers are not to be trusted. Mikeuk says so.

So Galahad. There is the Rock.

So Galahad. Will you accept the testimony of Scripture and the words of the early Greek fathers, or will you go with Mikeuk?

And that is why we hold it so. Of all the attempts at trying to make it say something else, Valiant and others like him, their position is quite the least sensible of all. Not that that will ever stop him. His rudeness exceeds his logic by a very large factor.
It is why I have stopped conversing with him.

LOL you mean because you got beaten every time?

 

[Jeff_56]

only for appearances. nothing in it was true nor right with God.


re : Than why P J Paul apology for?


and

Today's church are not motivated to fight against the apostasy because they are in the apostasy.

 

[Jeff_56]

valiant might have some things wrong, but the common enemy of all life on earth is the rcc.

 

[notuptome]

Repeating the same argument, Jesus cannot be the rock when scripture says Abraham is the rock.
You assume it can only be used once and in one context, so use that to exclude all other use, and in doing so prove it was Abraham!

Because scripture teaches that Peter is not the rock upon which the church is founded. Peter may be a stone but the foundation of the church that is the living breathing organism Christ birthed, is Christ alone. Moses and Abraham are types of the promised Messiah but not the Messiah. They are shadows of that which is to come. Peter like the other apostles and disciples built upon the foundation Christ. We all are described as living stones in Christ. Peter tells us so in 1 Pet 2:5 Ironic that Peter himself would say that eh?

Notice in all cases that RCC takes the more literal of the choices.
- In the case of Thou art peter, upon this peter I build my Church - we take it literally, to mean Peter.
- Eat my flesh and drink my blood - we take it literally as evidence of real presence
- The woman of revelations 12, who else but Mary if taken literally.

It is others who strain at Gnats to find allegory, where none is declared as allegorical.

So in a multitude of errors you claim that makes truth? A simple case of private interpretation which is of course error.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Galahad]

Galahad, these matters have been discussed 100 times and more, and we get weary of repeating the obvious answers.

However as one of the only courteous posters you deserve at least some response. But it will be brief.

- The number of references to peter, Jesus, abraham are hardly important surely, because that "popularity" vote would have the unintended consequence of putting Abraham ahead of Jesus! I think I am right in saying however that where several disciples are listed together, Peter is always first.

- You do not mention the obvious reference to rock which is disappointing if you intended balance. The words peter and rock are the same stem, so if you accept that the conversation was in aramaic, which was indeed the first language of the less educated of the holy land, then Jesus says in Mat 16:18 either.

Simon......thou art (Meaning I shall call you) rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, or if you like.
thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church.

In order to avoid the blindingly obvious some will tell you that the conversation was in Greek (nonsense Peter is recorded as speaking Galilean, a dialect of aramaic, which history records is the working language, and indeed the "fields of blood" speech say that aramaic was the language) so they try to distinguish petra and petros to say.

Thou art rock but upon this other (large) rock , I will build my church.
Except nowhere does it say other..or but.
It would therefore actually say "thou art rock and upon this (large?) rock I will build my church
In short they are splitting ungrammatical hairs. Even Calvin and Luther both thought peter was the rock and Special.
The obvious reality is that the greek translator put petros /petra in for effect, not to change the meaning.

From the beginning to end Matthew tries to present the gospel as scripture fulfilled, and refers back to the OT, and quotes Jesus doing that, a number of times because he knew his audience would understand the biblical references.
Jesus is also built up numerous times as a davidic King, and associates himself with that kingdom, for example riding a donkey as Solomon had.

So the obvious meaning of "keys of the kingdom" TO HIS AUDIENCE OF JEWS would be a direct reference back to Hezekiah in Isaiah, where the "keys of the kingdom" are clearly represented as the symbol of an office of steward (similar to prime minister, a role with succession handed down). Keys may well mean something else to todays audience, cutting themselves off from tradition, but that is what it would have meant to the jews who were obsessive about finding meaning from OT.

So when Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom" to peter , it is no accident, it is direct reference back to the priministerial role of Davidic times, an office with succession, and that is how the jews would have understood it. So there it is in the old testament.

Finally when it comes to succession, consider the truth of early christianity. That it was handed down. which is the meaning of paradosis, tradition. And we see in the early church, the appointing of succession of bishops, the empowerment of clergy. Do you really think Jesus would want his church to die out after one generation? The new testament came later. Paul says "stay true to the tradition which we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and later the new testament says "the pillar of truth is the church"

I reply out of courtesy.

Thank you
Concerning the answers.

I honestly do not know where they have been addressed. That is NOT meant to insult you or the others posting on this thread. I too posted replies earlier. Do to the tone and substance of the postings, I skim through. Again, not a charge against anyone. My postings have not been ideal.

But I will take your word. Still I am asking from reasoning. I have to understand. Then give a reply to help me learn what Catholics believe. One person's question may not contain the exact words another person would have used, though the question may address the same subject. Exact words?

There's a difference between: "Was Peter inspired by God?" and "Was Peter baptized with the Holy Spirit?" One question pulls out certain information that the other does not.

Concerning number of times Peter found in scripture.

I accept your word. The number of times is not a matter of importance.

Concerning Peter listed first.

That is one reason why Catholics believe Peter was the first pope. That is not enough. I look through the New Testament. I find no direct statement that Peter is the first pope, nor he is referred to as being the head of the church in place of Christ on earth.

If I am to follow the teaching of Rome, then I need more than Peter is always listed first among the apostles.
The Bible does not set doctrine that way. What I need is a command, a statement that I am to follow Rome and not merely listen to and obey the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Concerning no mention of Matthew 16.

You are correct, I did not mention the obvious reference to rock. But do not fault me for that, please. I did not reference it for a number of reasons, 1.) I know the arguments for and against Peter being the rock. 2.) My other comments/questions are related to it. 3.) Wanted to focus on other passages.

Since Matthew 16 is introduced, I will reply.
In all my years of Bible study, I have seen time and again that when a person has nothing more than the etymology, the historical use, and the language of a word to support their doctrine, they will inevitably twist the clear meaning of other scriptures in an attempt to fit it with their explanation of the word's meaning.

Well, what did Jesus mean in Matthew 16:18? Peter is the one addressed by Jesus. Peter will be given the keys. Jesus speaks about the kingdom. And let's interpret the meaning by what lies ahead of that passage. Jesus said, I will build, I will give. Did Jesus ever build? Did he ever give? We know He did. And it's in the Bible. We must read on further. We don't go back to find the meaning, we go forward.

Here's a short list of incidents and statements and events in the Bible involving Peter after Matthew 16:18 --
Jesus rebukes Peter, Get behind Me, Satan.
Peter sees Jesus transfigured. Peter finds coin in mouth of fish.
Peter cuts ear off. Peter denies Jesus.
Peter exhorted to Feed My lambs, Feed My sheep.
Peter with the other apostles are commissioned to Go into all the world and preach the gospel, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.
Peter is first to preach gospel to Jews and first to the Gentiles.
Peter rebuked by Paul.
Peter wrote two letters.
Etc.
Nothing affirmed that would align with the RCC explanation of Matthew 16:18.

And since RCC bases their doctrines and practices upon the Bible verse Matthew 16:18, let us take some of doctrines and practices and see if Peter endorses such things. Remember, According to Catholics, Peter was the first pope.

Here's a list of just a few Catholic teachings and practices which are compared to what Peter said. Again, Matthew 16 is in the Bible. Catholics quote it. Peter is in the Bible. Catholics claim Peter was pope. So let's use the Bible, looking after Matthew 16:18.

Peter rejects homage. That can't be ignored. He did NOT command, demand, request that his foot be kissed. That his hand be kissed. That a ring be kissed. He said to Cornelius Stand up. You would expect popes to follow the example of the first pope.
Peter is never addressed or referred to as pope. Never vicar of Christ. Never the rock. Never the chief apostle. Never the head of the church. And never Holy Father. (Such is blasphemous.)

Peter did not live as a king. Adorned in earthly and kingly attire. He did not wine and dine with world leaders. He was not seated above any assembly as royalty. He was not protected as a king. He was not inaccessible to the people. His was not served hand and foot. No earthly palace, no earthly mansion, no earthly wealth, no earthly fame.

Just with the attitude and lifestyle alone there is a glaring contrast between Peter the servant of the Lord and that of Rome's pope. The former -- the humble servant, clearly. The latter -- you be the judge.

Additionally, we would find others were said to bind and loose. We would come across this And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Ephesians 2:20.


Concerning Matthew and prophecy.
I agree. Matthew is showing that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus fulfills the messianic prophecy. You are correct. And Peter is not the Christ. He will not be the Christ. Peter is not the vicar of Christ. Nor will he be. It's all about Jesus. Nowhere does Matthew call Peter the pope.

If my memory is correct, Matthew always lists the OT passage to the fulfillment he gives.

But you write, From the beginning to end Matthew tries to present the gospel as scripture fulfilled, and refers back to the OT, and quotes Jesus doing that, a number of times because he knew his audience would understand the biblical references.
Jesus is also built up numerous times as a davidic King, and associates himself with that kingdom, for example riding a donkey as Solomon had.

Now notice what you conclude --

So the obvious meaning of "keys of the kingdom" TO HIS AUDIENCE OF JEWS would be a direct reference back to Hezekiah in Isaiah, where the "keys of the kingdom" are clearly represented as the symbol of an office of steward (similar to prime minister, a role with succession handed down). Keys may well mean something else to todays audience, cutting themselves off from tradition, but that is what it would have meant to the jews who were obsessive about finding meaning from OT.

The problem is, Matthew never tied the keys to those passages. He did not refer to Hezekiah and Isaiah. You did. Not Matthew.

And I would not be so quick to conclude that the Jews would understand or agree with your conclusion about the keys. Again, you interpret it that way. Matthew did not say that. He did not write As it is written in the prophet Hezekiah, Isaiah.

Concerning tradition.
Again I ask, why do you believe the Bible to be inspired by God. What evidence do you rely on?


I thank you so very much. I thoroughly appreciate your time and your response. Thank you.

 

[mwc68]

How can you define heresy if you do not have a Magisterium? Who holds the correct set of doctrines in the Protestant Church to set the limits to know which beliefs are heresies and which are not? Where can we find this document?

You need to know the person of Jesus not a church. Jesus alone is able to save you from your sins. The church can do nothing to atone for your sins. There is no virtue in a faith no matter how ardent that faith may be if it is placed in anyone other than Jesus Christ.

Do you believe in or participate in masses for the dead?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

yes, no matter what you say. i don't think you are an example of a Christian

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Pope John Paul II is well known for making apologies and was making them long before he became Pope. That aside, his apology with respect to slavery was an apology for those Catholics who engaged in the African slave trade over the protests of the RCC.

It makes sense. If I have an organization and some people in my organization violate my organization's policies, I will disenroll them from my organization (or in the case of the RCC there was a standing order of excommunication the roots of which trace all the way back to the 566 A.D. excommunication-of-slavers proviso and even before) and apologize for their behavior.

That's effectively what happened.

Than why Pope John Paul II apology for?

 

[mwc68]

How can you define heresy if you do not have a Magisterium? Who holds the correct set of doctrines in the Protestant Church to set the limits to know which beliefs are heresies and which are not? Where can we find this document?

Mikeuk, if you are putting your Faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit then why are you teaching the false Doctrine that Mary was sinless?

You do know the Holy Spirit says that Mary was a sinner? How can you say you have the grace of the Holy Spirit when you teach the opposite of what the Holy Spirit teaches?

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

All includes Mary also Mikeuk.

You are speaking out both sides of your mouth. You say you have the Grace of the Holy Spirit and at the same time teaching just the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says.

Clearly no one who has the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit will ever teach the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says. Its very clear Mikeuk you do not have the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

Since you are speaking on your own and not by the Grace of the Holy Spirit we can ignore everything you say.

Repent Mikeuk. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Accept the Salvation God has for you. Accept the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and you will enter into Heaven with the rest of us True Christians.

Staying on the road you are on will lead to the Lake of Fire.

You continue to misuse the scripture, Romans 3:23. You have to go back to verse 19 to get the context. St. Paul is talking about the Law and those who follow it, which of course is the Old Testament

 

[valiant]

How can you define heresy if you do not have a Magisterium?

you do not find truth by simply believing what other people tell you to believe. That is for children. You find truth by digging deep and then coming to your own conclusions. It is the only way to find truly satisfactory truth. There are certain Biblical truths which are so clear to the one who knows the LORD Jesus Christ that he knows that anyone who accepts them is heretical. That is how we know the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS HERETICAL.

We examine their teaching and compare it with Scripture. Their heresies are thereby clearly revealed. So much for their Magisterium.

Who holds the correct set of doctrines in the Protestant Church to set the limits to know which beliefs are heresies and which are not? Where can we find this document?

Its called The Bible. You should study it sometimes using your own mind. But there are statements of faith accepted by large numbers of Christians in many denominations, because they are recognised as containing Scriptural truth. For example that of the Evangelical Alliance. Young Christians can test themselves by those and by comparing them with Scripture. But the mature Christian needs nothing other than the word of God. That is his Magisterium.

 

[valiant]

You continue to misuse the scripture, Romans 3:23. You have to go back to verse 19 to get the context. St. Paul is talking about the Law and those who follow it, which of course is the Old Testament

No it is you who do not understand Scripture. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God goes beyond the Law. It compares us with the holiness and glory of God Himself. We may think we can scrape through by observing the Law. But once we meet Romans 3.23 we are beaten. It is a summary of 1.18-3.22. It covers those who are under the Law and those who are without Law. It covers all aspects of sin. It condemns ALL. However 'holy' we may seek to be. we pale before the glorious holiness of God. And that includes Mary.

 

[mwc68]

How can you define heresy if you do not have a Magisterium? Who holds the correct set of doctrines in the Protestant Church to set the limits to know which beliefs are heresies and which are not? Where can we find this document?

valiant might have some things wrong, but the common enemy of all life on earth is the rcc.

Very funny since Catholicism is one of the strongest Pro Life supporters

 

[valiant]

Very funny since Catholicism is one of the strongest Pro Life supporters

not really mike. you can be pro-life and still cause harm to all life on earth. It just gives you more life to do harm to.

 

[Jackson123]

only for appearances. nothing in it was true nor right with God.


re : Than why P J Paul apology for?


and

Today's church are not motivated to fight against the apostasy because they are in the apostasy.

I agree, I doubt about what Vatican formal law against slavery.

Formally Vatican appears oppose slavery, it only for cover up.

The fruit, about inquisitions tell what kind of tree Vatican is.

 

[KenAllan]

Mwc68 you really need to study the Scriptures and see what they say before you open up your mouth and make a fool of yourself.

Romans 3:19-31
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
[SUP]22 [/SUP] even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
[SUP]24 [/SUP] being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
[SUP]25 [/SUP] whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
[SUP]26 [/SUP] to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
[SUP]27 [/SUP] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
[SUP]28 [/SUP] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
[SUP]29 [/SUP] Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
[SUP]30 [/SUP] since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
[SUP]31 [/SUP] Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.


I see Mikeuk has refused to to respond to my post. Mwc68 has also refused to answer about who is he following.

Clearly both Mikeuk and Mwc68 are following the teachings of a church for their eternal destiny.

I do not see them following the Holy Spirit and the Truths He has in the Scriptures.

 

[KenAllan]

Clearly we see the Catholics here have put their trust for Eternal destiny in the Catholic Church and not in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Since they trust what man says and not what God says puts them on the wide and broad gate that leads to destruction.

Matthew 7:13-14
[SUP]13 [/SUP] "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.