“Actually, Protestants are not necessarily Christians either. It depends on what you confess and what you believe. But I can say the same of people who call themselves Roman Catholic.”
So now you’re talking about Protestants who aren’t Christians while earlier you falsely accused me of saying Protestants aren’t Christians?
“A Christian (by scriptural definition ) is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ, not some label you attach to them as in the above labels you use.”
I was the one who pointed out that a believer in Christ who was also baptized is a Christian. You insisted that was not the case if that person is a heretic.
“So, what makes someone a follower? Simple -— Jesus Himself gives the criteria : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say?” (Luke 6:46 ).”
You have done this at least two or three times now: you post a verse that actually shows that – by your own definition and proof texts – you are not a Christian or follower of Jesus. You contradict yourself again and again.
“So, Someone who OBEYS the Lord’s teachings IS a Christian, regardless of how you label them.”
And there you go again writing yourself out of Christianity.
“Errr... you keep using the word “heresy” without bothering to define the word.”
I already know the definition. I don’t need to define it. If you need it defined, it means you’re not ready for this conversation – which has been self-evident for several hours now.
“As for sects, tens of thousands of them, you need to show me what each individual sect or denomination confesses and believe in.”
No, actually I don’t. They’re all Protestant sects. That’s all that is needed.
“I don’t call every one of them heretical simply because you use the word “sect” to describe them.”
All Protestant sects are heretical. It is inevitable.
“WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE? <-— that is the criteria, not what vladimir says.”
They believe in Protestantism – which is heresy.
“This tells me one thing— You either : 1) Don’t know what
the gospel is; or 2) Are simply using the word without knowing what it means; or 3) You are avoiding answering it for fear you might mis-define it.”
None of the above. I don’t mind if it bothers you.
“But we have all the time in the world... this thread need not die out and I am a patient man. I’d like to wait for your definition of the gospel....”
Get comfy.
“Well, it looks like we need to define our terms again — What is “the Church”?”
What you’re not in.
“I don’t agree that Protestants (those who believe seriously in scripture ) are not in communion with the CHURCH of Christ.”
1) It doesn’t matter what you believe. Since you are not in the Church, and don’t believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no reason to think that you have a clue.
2) Protestants do not “believe seriously in scripture”. They seriously believe in their heresies.
“I don’t know how you define it,”
I define it correctly.
“but here is the Biblical definition :”
And not surprisingly you made the same mistake that all Protestants make.
“ A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers.”
Completely false. Baptists do not believe in infant baptism. Lutherans do. Both claim to believe in sola scriptura and sola fide yet they differ widely on something as essential as baptism – what it means, who receives it, why it matters. Christ and the Holy Spirit simply don’t operate that way.
“The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.”
No. Although all baptized Christians have some connection to the Church, not all are members of the Church. Some directly reject it in fact.
“THAT is the Biblical definition of the church. What is yours?”
The correct one. Yours is not the Biblical definition. Yours is merely the Protestant definition.
“No, the question is how do you define “Heresy”?”
No. Heresy has already been defined. It is not how I define it. It is not how you define it. It is why do you continue to embrace it?
“You have used several words which you don’t bother to define.”
I don’t need to. I already know the definitions. If you don’t know those definitions, that is your problem and reflective of the fact that you are just a Protestant and Protestantism is synonymous with heresy.
“Here they are : The Church, Heresy, Gospel.”
I am in the Church, follow the Gospel, and leave all the Heresy to you since you embrace it.
“You are equivocating again.”
No. Things are what they are. You apparently want things to be what they aren’t. A Protestant can never be “catholic” because if his beliefs became “catholic” he would instantly cease to be a Protestant in belief.
“By “catholic” you are equating the term with ROMAN Catholic.”
Completely false. I directly equate catholic with Catholic as is proper.
“I don’t believe you can claim the word “catholic” (Universal ) as your own.”
What you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church is catholic. Protestant sects are just heretical sects and not catholic in any sense of the world.
“You can call yourself a Protestant and NOT be in the catholic (universal ) church by virtue of your unbelief. Likewise, you can be baptized into the ROMAN catholic Church and not be a member of the “catholic” church by virtue of your unbelief. How many Roman Catholics are now atheists or converted to Islam? These people are not members of the catholic church any longer by virtue of their unbelief.”
Once again you attack a belief no one holds.
“Calling it irrefutable does not make it so.”
Nope. But it is irrefutable – and that’s why I called it so.
“Let’s make it even better -— No canonization, or no acclamation DOES NOT MEAN one is not a Saint.”
No kidding.
“And by that, I again go back to scripture, not vladimir’s definition.”
You mean that once again you will attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds. And this time you plagiarize a website to do it while claiming you’re going “back to scripture”: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS418US418&q=%E2%80%9Csaint%E2%80%9D+comes+from+the+Greek+word+hagios%2C+which+means+%E2%80%9Cconsecrated+to+God%2C+holy%2C+sacred%2C+pious.%E2%80%9D+It+is+almost+always+used+in+the+plural%2C+%E2%80%9Csaints.%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6Lord%2C+I+have+heard+from+many+about+this+man%2C+how+much+harm+he+did+to+Your+saints+at+Jerusalem%E2%80%9D+(Acts+9%3A13).+%E2%80%9CNow+as+Peter+was+traveling+through+all+those+regions%2C+he+came+down+also+to+the+saints+who+lived+at+Lydda%E2%80%9D+(Acts+9%3A32).+
Why are Protestants so dishonest?
“So, a virtuous Christian does not don’t need to be canonized, or acclamated to be a Saint. All one needs is for GOD to see you as one.”
Again, why do you attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
“The fact that St. Patrick is recognized as a Saint by ALL Christians ( not only by those of the Roman Catholic persuasion ) is a GOOD THING.”
Not all Christians recognize St. Patrick as a saint.
“It simply means he meets the BIBLICAL criteria of being a Saint, which EVERY Christian ( be he in the Roman Catholic church or not ) can aspire to become.”
It’s amazing how much time you spend making points that do not need to be made.
“Correction : True Christians are ALL Catholics (members of the UNIVERSAL church ). St. Patrick was Catholic, true, but so are many virtous Christians who are not baptized in the ROMAN catholic church.”
Correction: no Protestant can be Catholic.
“Actually the emphasis is on the word “I”, which is your own peculiar definition of what the gospel is ( which you still refuse to say ).”
No the emphasis is on “already”. And I have no “peculiar” definition of what the gospel is. I only hold to the true definition. Only Protestants or other heretics can have a peculiar definition of the gospel by definition.
“I go by what St. Paul said.”
No, you don’t. You go by what most Protestants say St. Paul said.
“And since Kennedy believes in what St. Paul defines as the gospel, I have to conclude that
your statement is WRONG.”
What you conclude is immaterial since you’re a sectarian and holder of heresy.
RE: So now you’re talking about Protestants who aren’t Christians while earlier you falsely accused me of saying Protestants aren’t Christians?
My DISAGREEMENT with you is calling heretics Christians. They CANNOT BE if John’s epistle is to be taken seriously. Someone who refuses to adhere to the essential tenets of the faith cannot by definition, be a Christian.
So, calling someone a heretic and still saying he is a Christian is incorrect.
RE: I was the one who pointed out that a believer in Christ who was also baptized is a Christian. You insisted that was not the case if that person is a heretic.
Yes, a heretic, someone who DENIES the essentials of the Christian faith CANNOT be Christian even if he were baptized.
If a baptized person denies the faith ( for instance, become atheist or a Muslim or denies that Jesus Christ is God ), then he cannot be considered Christian EVEN if he were baptized Christian.
He needs to be converted ( or re-converted as the case may be ) in order for him to be considered Christian.
Hence, the Aryans, who denied the deity of Jesus Christ, or today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses who do the same, cannot be considered Christians.
RE: You have done this at least two or three times now: you post a verse that actually shows that – by your own definition and proof texts – you are not a Christian or follower of Jesus. You contradict yourself again and again.
I post the verses in the Bible as the BASIS or the STANDARD by which we ought to define our terms by. That’s all.
St. John says of one heresy ( Gnosticism ): “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”
The gnostics heretics claim to believe in Jesus, claim to be his followers, claim to believe in His teachings, YET, DENY his humanity (the Incarnation) ( as opposed to the other heretics, Aryans who denied His deity ). What did John say about this heresy?
“They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.”
So, heretics who John calls Anti-Christ and one who “is not of us” are NOT Christians.
Therefore, a heretic is NOT a Christian.
My issue with you then is your saying that a heretic can be a Christian. Not according to St. John he can’t.
RE: And there you go again writing yourself out of Christianity.
In what way? I strive to obey Christ and His word. I take what he said over what YOU say.
RE: I already know the definition. I don’t need to define it. If you need it defined, it means you’re not ready for this conversation – which has been self-evident for several hours now.
I highly doubt that you know the definition. If you did you would not avoid defining it for us. You’d rather write long responses when a simple definition would help, but NO, you would drone on and on without defining the terms you use.
RE: No, actually I don’t. They’re all Protestant sects. That’s all that is needed.
No, that is NOT all that is needed.
Again, what do the sects teach? If their teachings are in accordance with scripture, what’s the problem?
RE: All Protestant sects are heretical. It is inevitable.
Again, DEFINE heresy. I just showed you my definition based on Biblical and historical understanding of the word.
Your use of the word is meaningless unless you tell us exactly how you understand it.
RE: They believe in Protestantism – which is heresy.
IF they believe in Jesus Christ and His word, how can that be heresy?
That sweeping statement you make makes for LAZY logic.
RE: None of the above. I don’t mind if it bothers you.
Heck, I’m not bothered. It just tells me a lot about your lame arguments than anything else.
RE: Get comfy.
I am thank you. We have all the megabytes in the world for this thread.
RE: What you’re not in.
If it is only vladimir ( who refuses top define his terms) saying so, then I’m glad I meet the opposite of what he says :)
RE: 1) It doesn’t matter what you believe.
TRUE, and the same can be said of what YOU believe. It matters what SCRIPTURE says.
RE: Since you are not in the Church
Why not? I believe in Jesus Christ, I obey His word, I follow the teachings of His apostles. Your “since” is a non-sequitor.
RE: and don’t believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ,
Again, what is the gospel of Jesus Christ? You keep using the word without defining it.
RE: there is no reason to think that you have a clue.
There is every reason to think that I am the one who has the clue and not you.
The apostle Paul told us what the gospel is in His letter to the Corinthian Church.
The only question now is this — do you adhere to HIS definition of the gospel?
Honestly, I don;t know because you have not told us what your idea of the gospel is.
RE: 2) Protestants do not “believe seriously in scripture”. They seriously believe in their heresies.
Again, define heresy as you conceive it. You keep using the word without defining it.
RE: I define it correctly.
Where? All you’ve done is AVOID defining it.
RE: And not surprisingly you made the same mistake that all Protestants make.
Which is what?
RE: Completely false. Baptists do not believe in infant baptism.
SO? Where in scripture can you show me infant baptism? All instances of baptism areof people who PROFESS their faith.
RE: Lutherans do.
Again, so? I have no quarrels with that tradition. How one baptizes is not an issue when it comes to heresy. Where in the history of the church councils that condemn heresy are the mode of baptisms made an issue of?
RE: Both claim to believe in sola scriptura and sola fide yet they differ widely on something as essential as baptism – what it means, who receives it, why it matters. Christ and the Holy Spirit simply don’t operate that way.
Lutherans DO Not quarrel with Baptists on baptism. They might disagree on the mode of baptism, but they do not call each other heretics for one practicing it one way and one practicing it the other way.
And as for St. Patrick, can you show me any instance where he baptized infants? His writings mention baptism of ADULTS ( Like Enda ). It never mentions his baptizing infants. Cormac was Enda’s son who was born before Enda was baptized. I find it strange that there is no mention of the bpatism of Cormac at all.
RE: No. Although all baptized Christians have some connection to the Church, not all are members of the Church. Some directly reject it in fact.
I will agree to the word “some”. It applies to those who are baptized Roman Catholic as well. I know of Roman Catholics who have become atheist. I know of some who have converted to Islam. They CANNOT be members of the church universal.
RE: The correct one. Yours is not the Biblical definition. Yours is merely the Protestant definition.
Well, I have cited scripture. Which scripture do you cite that shows my understanding to be wrong?
The least you could do is cite some passages. I’m waiting as usual .... ( in vain I bet ).
RE: No. Heresy has already been defined.
Then surely for the benefit of those who read this exchange, it would be a matter for you to state it for our edification.
RE: It is not how I define it. It is not how you define it. It is why do you continue to embrace it?
How do I know if me or you are embracing it or not unless you define it?
RE:I don’t need to.
Oh yes you do. Unless you do it, your accusations are meaningless.
RE: I already know the definitions.
Well, prove it by defining it.
RE: If you don’t know those definitions, that is your problem
But I just defined it in my previous post. You haven’t told me whether you agreed with it or not. And if you don’t, you ought to tell me where my definition is wrong and most importantly — WHY.
RE: and reflective of the fact that you are just a
Protestant and Protestantism is synonymous with heresy.
Where in the Bible does it say that?
It is just as meaningless as my saying — You are a ROMAN Catholic and ROMAN Catholicism is synonymous with heresy.
RE: I am in the Church, follow the Gospel,
Again, what is the gospel? I point you towards 1 Corinthians 15 as St. Paul tells us. Do you agree with that?
RE: and leave all the Heresy to you since you embrace it.
Define heresy for us, otherwise the above statement is just babbling.
RE: No. Things are what they are. You apparently want things to be what they aren’t.
Nope, I want YOU to clarify what you mean when you use a word. We cannot know whether things are what they are or how they should be unless you define your terms.
RE: A Protestant can never be “catholic” because if his beliefs became “catholic” he would instantly cease to be a Protestant in belief.
I will agree that a Protestant cannot be ROMAN catholic. But if the word — catholic means the universal church of believers (and it does), then yes, Protestants who believe in Jesus Christ and strive to follow His teachings are catholic ( Not Roman Catholic ).
RE:Completely false.
Absolutely true.
RE: I directly equate catholic with Catholic as is proper.
Nope, you equate catholic with ROMAN catholic, which is not exactly proper.
RE:What you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church is catholic.
To be more correct — all true believers in Christ REGARDLESS OF DENOMINATION are catholic. And what is “true believer” is not something you or I can exactly determine. Only God in his omniscience knows.
RE: Protestant sects are just heretical sects and not catholic in any sense of the world.
Again, DEFINE HERESY. You keep using the word but keep avoiding its definition. And oh yeah, I’m comfy, this thread has mega bytes. I can wait.
Well, since you have not defined what constitute heresy, the statement is only made by your own authority. That’s all.
And if you want to cite any modern Pope who claims Protestants are heretical, I’d like to hear from you.
RE: Once again you attack a belief no one holds.
I don’t attack people for what they themselves tell me.
I KNOW of Baptized Roman Catholics who have become atheist and muslim, that is not an attack, that is ( to use your words ) — They way things are. They themselves user the term “atheist” and “muslim”. I simply acknowledge what they say.
Nope. But it is irrefutable
Well, I refute you nonetheless.
RE: and that’s why I called it so.
Yes, and the “I” in the above sentence is YOUR opinion. Holds as much water as a bucket full of holes.
RE: No kidding.
Yes, no kidding.
RE: You mean that once again you will attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
I use scripture. The onus is on you to show me where my understanding of scripture is faulty.
RE: Why are Protestants so dishonest?
I could also ask the question — why is Vladimir so afraid to define his terms?
RE: Again, why do you attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
Then I have to ask — why do you attack people who are not of your denomination as heretics or preaching a false gospel without bothering and even REFUSING to define your terms?
RE: Not all Christians recognize St. Patrick as a saint.
Which “Christian”? Can you name some?
RE: It’s amazing how much time you spend making points that do not need to be made.
Simply — it is in order to clarify what I mean and what I believe. I could also say this — It’s amazing how much time you spend using words like heresy and gospel without defining what you mean by these terms.
RE: Correction: no Protestant can be Catholic.
Correction : No Protestant can be Roman catholic, but Protestants CAN be catholic. And not all those baptized as Roman Catholics are Catholics.
No the emphasis is on “already”.
Nope I emphasize the word “I” because that is what YOU opine.
RE: And I have no “peculiar” definition of what the gospel is.
You refuse to define it, and that’s peculiar in itself.
RE: I only hold to the true definition.
Which is what? we’re close ... tell us please. I’d like to see how it holds up to Saint Paul’s..... Yes, I’m comfy and I;m waiting....
RE: Only Protestants or other heretics can have a peculiar definition of the gospel by definition.
Well, what is a heretic and what is the gospel?
RE: No, you don’t. You go by what most Protestants say St. Paul said.
Can you tell me what St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that I or other Protestants don’t adhere to?
re: What you conclude is immaterial since you’re a sectarian and holder of heresy.
Since you have not bothered to define heresy, I still conclude that my conclusion is MATERIAL.