Replies

Since there are literally thousands of differing Protestant Interpretations and doctrines, which is the "Golden Denomination" to which all others should heed. The rest of your prattle was simply an overly wordy regurgitation of "yes, but not Rome".

I've always love the smugness of Roman Catholics who really have left the true faith of the early fathers. The early fathers had no problem in deciding what was inerrant and infallible scripture and what wasn't. Funny, when claiming what was inerrant, they selected just a few books of scriptures. They never once mentioned any other writings as being infallible and inerrant. Yet Roman Catholics want to make just about everything inerrant-at least everything today that is their writing that they wish to agree with. The rest they will brush under the rug. Do you still believe the holy decrees of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 that says you should go and fight for the Holy Lands?

The Orthodox rejects the Nicene Creed, the infallibility of the Pope, and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary; yet Roman Catholics see no problem in reconciliation. They embrace homosexuals telling them they're really OK, but don't do anything a priest wouldn't do.

Truth is Roman Catholics have changed the interpretation of the atonement, of faith, of grace, of judgment, and just about every other major doctrine. There really isn't anything left of Christianity in Roman Catholicism except funny hats and lots of pomp. And those weren't Christian either.

Roman Catholics pretend to based doctrine upon "improving" on the interpretation of the fathers, yet they distort and depart from the original interpretation. They have follow the heresy of Pelagius which the early church rightfully condemn yet claim they trace their roots back to Augustine. They worship (venerate) the creature rather than the creator. They've changed the First Commandment in their text simply to avoid embarrassment at breaking it.

It would almost be laughable if it wasn't such a pity. Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.

"I've always love the smugness of Roman Catholics who really have left the true faith of the early fathers. The early fathers had no problem in deciding what was inerrant and infallible scripture and what wasn't."

Is it hubris, vanity, arrogance, or that smugness thing you mentioned that would compel anyone to claim for themselves the gifts of the early fathers?

I've never had the opportunity to speak directly with anyone who believed in their own infallibility with respect to interpretation before so please humor me. Assuming, for argument's sake, that you do have the gift of inerrance and infallibility, besides "Rome" which denominations do you personally differ with on any points of interpretation and doctrine? Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli were not in complete agreement, which was right? You differ with many of your fellow Protestants in this forum, which are wrong?

Is this gift exclusive to you or are there others who have the gift?

I've always love the smugness of Roman Catholics who really have left the true faith of the early fathers.

They're called Protestants.

The early fathers had no problem in deciding what was inerrant and infallible scripture and what wasn't. Funny, when claiming what was inerrant, they selected just a few books of scriptures.

Which Scripture was declared inerrant and in what language?And what makes you think that you have that interpretation correct?

Do you still believe the holy decrees of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 that says you should go and fight for the Holy Lands?

Why not? You guys don't and never have. You guys were willing to let the Muslims take Europe as long as they'd let you have some small territory of your own. It was the Catholics that stopped the Muslims in Austria - the Protestants were allies and attempted to help - the Hungarian Protestants even fought with the Muslims against Vienna.

The Orthodox rejects the Nicene Creed, the infallibility of the Pope, and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary; yet Roman Catholics see no problem in reconciliation.

And what do you know of Orthodoxy? Or Roman Catholicism? Not these little tidbits.

All the way back to the beginning, the Catholic Church is the original Christians and, given what we see posted here day after day, the only Christians.

It would almost be laughable if it wasn't such a pity. Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.

The Mass is a worship of God. Protestant services generally aren't - they are a praise of the pastor. You want examples? And all these Protestants believe that this is OK.

Remember Paul preached baptism for the remission of sins -- as we see commissioned by Jesus Christ and repeated by the Apostles

here is what Paul said Acts 2:38,

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16;

16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Rom. 6:1–4;

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Cor 6:11,

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

1 Cor 12:13;

13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Gal. 3:26–27;

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Eph. 5:26;

to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,

Col. 2:11–12;

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Titus 3:5;

5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

One cannot even say this was a symbol -- look at all of the examples above, look at the language, consistently same the same in each, that in baptism we are saved and buried with Christ, washed of our sins by this and born again

Remember, the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

And for Eucharist, you can see on the Road to Emmaus ¹³ Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles^[a] from Jerusalem. ¹⁴ They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. ¹⁵ As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; ¹⁶ but they were kept from recognizing him.

¹⁷ He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. ¹⁸ One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

¹⁹ “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. ²⁰ The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; ²¹ but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. ²² In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning ²³ but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. ²⁴ Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

²⁵ He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! ²⁶ Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” ²⁷ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

²⁸ As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. ²⁹ But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

³⁰ When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. ³¹ Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. ³² They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

³³ They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together ³⁴ and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” ³⁵ Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. as described in here

Remember that the belief in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist IS right from NT times -- do you follow this?

in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

And, for more proof of this from history is that the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

The early fathers had no problem in deciding what was inerrant and infallible scripture and what wasn't. Funny, when claiming what was inerrant, they selected just a few books of scriptures

In a great variety too. Could you tell me which version of the Luke's Gospel (long or short) do you consider "inerrant and infallible"?

The Orthodox rejects the Nicene Creed...and the and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary

LOL! Kolo, do you "reject" the Nicene Creed "and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary"?

They embrace homosexuals telling them they're really OK, but don't do anything a priest wouldn't do

This is really getting old. How many corrupt, homosexual, Jim Joneses, money manipulating, prostitute chasing, end of the world nuts do you have in the Protestant community to pretend to have the moral high ground form which to throw mud at others?

Truth is Roman Catholics have changed the interpretation of the atonement, of faith, of grace, of judgment, and just about every other major doctrine

They did to an extent, and the Protestants followed right along, and changed it one more time, so they are twice removed. How does that make them "better"?

There really isn't anything left of Christianity in Roman Catholicism except funny hats and lots of pomp. And those weren't Christian either

Rich and opulent, money flaunting TV evangelicals aren't exactly "grass roots" apostolic successors either.

Roman Catholics pretend to based doctrine upon "improving" on the interpretation of the fathers, yet they distort and depart from the original interpretation.

You mean Paul? is there any other interpretation the Protestants know?

They have follow the heresy of Pelagius which the early church rightfully condemn yet claim they trace their roots back to Augustine.

So, does Augustine (or Paul) define Christianity?

They worship (venerate) the creature rather than the creator. They've changed the First Commandment in their text simply to avoid embarrassment at breaking it

Which creature? The "firstborn of all creation"? Well, worship and venerate is not one and the same. Kolo and others who understand koine Greek have told you that on numerous occasions, and the Church, in whose language the NT was written, steadfastly treated them as separate. I guess you know better.

It would almost be laughable if it wasn't such a pity. Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.

So, everything not Catholic is okay? last time I checked, Protestants are a lot more liberal and all-inclusive then Catholics or especially the Orthodox. Protestant "churches" have openly homosexual "married" men and openly lesbian and "married" women as "bishops", or "ordained" ministers.

They also in much larger proportion support abortion and "eye for an eye", amassing wealth and opulence, and tend to make ridiculous end of the world predictions based on their own "creature" of worship the whatever variety of the Protestant Bible they use.

Take the log out of your eye, Harley, and get some glasses.

AMEN! Most egregiously, Rome has twisted and nullified the true meaning of justification, the core of our Christian faith -- that Christ's death satisfied in full the wages due God for our sins.

Once Rome rid itself of the Scriptural doctrine of justification by the active faith of Jesus Christ alone, it became a pagan temple to a man-made god.

Roman Catholics pretend to base doctrine upon "improving" on the interpretation of the fathers, yet they distort and depart from the original interpretation. They have followed the heresy of Pelagius which the early church rightfully condemn yet claim they trace their roots back to Augustine. They worship (venerate) the creature rather than the creator. They've changed the First Commandment in their text simply to avoid embarrassment at breaking it.

It would almost be laughable if it wasn't such a pity. Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.

AMEN, Harley!

No wonder FRoman Catholics want to shut down the Religion Forum. This place has been a blessing to all those seeking to understand the errors of Rome and just how far that religion has strayed from historic, orthodox Christianity.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." -- 2 Timothy 4:2-4